In the Angolan Civil War, two major parties, the MPLA, and UNITA were engaged in a dangerous conflict. Beginning in 1975, the war finally ended when Jonas Savimbi, the leader of UNITA, was assassinated in February 2002, and with the Luena Memorandum on April 4, 2002 (Meijer and Birmingham 2004, 15). The war can be split into several phases, some of which were more deadly than others, but the total cost of the Angolan conflict is “immeasurable” (Rocha 2009, 16).
This research paper will explain why and how the country devolved in civil war shortly after independence, the responsibility of different actors, before finally concluding about how this conflict affected and continues to affect Angolans socially and politically.
Independence to Civil War
By its modern borders, Angola had been formalized as a Portuguese colony at the Berlin Conference in 1884-85 (Meijer and Birmingham 2004, 11). A military coup in Portugal on April 25, 1974, signalled the end of Portuguese colonial rule in Africa (James 2011, 41). The Alvor Agreement stipulated those elections would be organized before independence around October 31, with independence set for November 11, 1975 (James 2011, 55). The agreement promised a tripartite government between the three fundamental independence movements – the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA), the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) and the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) (Davidson 1977, 142). Notably, in the ensuing Civil War, the FNLA was not a significant factor.
The Portuguese suspended the Alvor Agreement after the MPLA had driven the FNLA and UNITA out of Luanda in late August. By then, it was clear that the Portuguese would abandon Angola on Independence Day (James 2011, 58). On November 11, the MPLA declared the creation People’s Republic of Angola in the capital city of Luanda, while UNITA & FNLA declared the Democratic People’s Republic of Angola in Huambo (64).
Angola and the Cold War
The Cold War had a profound effect on Angola. Both key actors, UNITA and the MPLA, were backed by their global superpower.
W. Martin James III (2011) argues that the Alvor Agreement was purposefully sabotaged by the MPLA, with support from Cuba and the USSR, as they were aware that they would lose any election (253). The MPLA became a Marxist-Leninist party in 1977, so gained the support of the communist world (194). UNITA argued that the MPLA was a new colonial power, as they only had strength because of the USSR and Cuba (James 2011, 103).
Comparatively, Victoria Brittain (1998) argues that UNITA’s popularity was immense because of Jonas Savimbi’s, the leader of UNITA’s, significant anti-communism (10-11). The US, South Africa, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Congo (then known as Zaire) actively supported UNITA as they attempted to take Luanda militarily before the November 11 deadline (2-3). However, Between 1975 and 1983, MPLA was recognized as the legal government of Angola by every powerful nation except the US – UNITA was recognized by none (James 2011, 189).
A turning point was when the US recognized the MPLA regime in 1993 (Vidal 2008, 141). In 1991, the MPLA made a key concession, with the Bicesse Agreement, by agreeing to multiparty politics for UNITA accepting a ceasefire (Brittain 1998, 43). UNITA decided to undo the 1991 electoral results, which declared a resounding MPLA victory by force; therefore, the US-led international community switched its support from the rebels to the MPLA (Messiant 2008, 101).
The Claims to Power
The Statute of the Portuguese Natives of the Provinces of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea created by the Portuguese separated the indigenous African population from a tiny elite of civilized assimiladoes. The assimiladoes enjoyed some of the rights of Portuguese citizens, so this policy had a profound and lasting impact, helping to create the divisions and mistrust between the independence movements (Meijer and Birmingham 2004, 11).
The MPLA supporters were those who descended from mestizos and assimiladoes. UNITA embodied the economic aspirations of Ovimbundu (Meijer and Birmingham 2004, 12). The ethnic identification of these movements has largely emerged about because of conscious political manoeuvring by each group (12). UNITA appealed to their supporters by pointing out that the MPLA was a minority party that was not a black Angolan political party but dominated by mestizos and assimiladoes who keep black Angola subjugated (James 2011, 102). To avoid accusations that they were not African at all, the mestizos, whites and assimiladoes who formed the MPLA needed a class-based ideology (Newitt 2008, 74).
UNITA claimed to stand “for those who had not only been unjustly excluded from power at independence” (Ball and Gastrow 2019, 13). Furthermore, most of the leadership for the MPLA spoke Portuguese, so Savimbi believed that people would support a leader who spoke their language (James 2011, 104). UNITA respected ethnic customs and traditions, while the MPLA suppressed them. Yet many commentators have pointed out that the leadership of all the nationalist movements came from a group of Angolans classified as assimilados – those who had displayed a stipulated level of education, Portuguese culture, and economic independence (Newitt 2008, 53).
Modern Angola
In March 1991, the MPLA abandoned Marxist-Leninism and adopted democratic socialism/social democracy (Brittain 1998, 43). In October 2002, UNITA declared itself a fully disarmed and democratic political party (Meijer and Birmingham 2004, 15). There are approximately 200 registered political parties, but they have very little social, economic or ideological difference between themselves. The reason for this is that 27 years of civil war has increased the levels of mistrust among the population, making it extremely difficult for people to collaborate and co-operate with each other (Rocha 2009, 12). As a result, UNITA and the MPLA remain the two most prominent political actors, yet the MPLA is still the dominant party and has never been adequately unseated. The opposition party has been sufficiently weakened through decades of guerilla warfare and government propaganda that they do not hold any power capable of challenging the MPLA.
Additionally, the problems that led to the division between the three independence movements remain. Angola as a sovereign territory is a reality, but the modern Angolan nation still discriminates based on ethnicity, creed, class, religious or political affiliation (Rocha 2009, 2). People were killed, not for political reasons, but because they belonged to the wrong category. These social inequalities remain in modern Angola, as the civil war introduced a culture of each one for himself and the notion of survival of the fittest. Notably, while the civil war has further entrenched these inequalities, Portuguese colonial policy undeniably encouraged and deepened ethnic tensions and rivalries (3).
The consequences of the civil war are, apart from the direct war damage and neglect of infrastructure, some poor public policies and distorted economic programmes (Rocha 2009, 1). Today Angolans ranked as one of the lowest in world ratings in terms of human development, as less than 40% of the population has access to clean water and sanitation, while 70% do not have adequate social services (2). The generation born in 1975 has known nothing but war for 27 years, while almost one million people died, and hundreds of thousands have been physically and psychologically maimed (4-5). Four million people have been displaced, and 27 years of war have meant that almost every single Angola victim of disrupted family life (2).
Furthermore, while Angola has not had a level of violence seen in 2002, there is still violence in a specific region of Angola – Cabinda. Cabinda is an area in Angola separated from Angola by a 25km strip of DRC territory (Sadiqali 1976, 30). Several campaigns arguing for the independence of Cabinda were founded in the early 1960s (Warner 1989, 33). Since 2002, many Cabindans still support demands for independence. Towards the end of 2003, the Angolan government signalled that it was prepared to talk peace or even consider a referendum – however, the conflict remains unresolved (Meijer and Birmingham 2004, 15).
So, while peace is welcoming, there are still many social and economic obstacles that Angola still faces to search for a better life. Angola needs to develop; otherwise, there will be further social upheaval (Rocha 2009, 16).
Western Sahara is a region that is given very little attention in international media. Crowned as Africa’s last colony, It is a country that has been fighting for self-determination and independence for well over a century. Spain colonized the country until 1975 and as it was leaving, Morocco swiftly came in and for over forty years has held a brutal occupation of Western Sahara which is in defiance with U.N. convention and international law (Zunes). Currently, no country recognizes Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara (except the United States in 2020), but the lucrative extraction and exploitation of resources seem to be stopping the international community from taking any real action. The main reason for the occupation is for the plundering of its natural resources and fish, as Western Sahara is home to one of the largest sources of phosphates and rich fishing waters that supply the E.U. with much of its seafood (Contini).
Since its occupation, the Moroccan government’s occupation of Western Sahara has been characterized by decades of torture, disappearances, killings, and repression against the pro-independence Sahrawi people (natives of Western Sahara) living in the occupied territory. In 1991, the U.N. sponsored a ceasefire and promised the Sahrawi people a referendum on self-determination organized by the peacekeeping mission MINURSO (U.N.). Since then, Morocco has blocked attempts to organize a vote and the U.N. Security Council has refused to implement its referendum plan or allow MINURSO to monitor the human rights situation in Western Sahara (Democracy Now). International media has ignored the occupation in part because Morocco has blocked foreign media from entering and reporting on Western Sahara (Democracy Now).
Days after the Moroccan invasion (in 1975), Secretary of State Henry Kissinger privately told President Gerald Ford, “He hoped for a rigged U.N. Vote” to confirm Morocco’s claim over Western Sahara (Smith). Half of the Sahrawi population fled invasion to neighboring Algeria and the Moroccan invasion set off a 16-year long war with the Sahrawi liberation movement, known as the The Polisario Front. Morocco’s army, with help from the U.S. military, drove the Polisario to Western Sahara’s eastern region from the coast. Morocco then created the longest minefield and the second-largest wall on earth with help of U.S. weapons companies Northrop and Westinghouse (Democracy Now). The 1700 mile wall divides Sahrawis who remain under occupation from those who fled into exile. The U.N. Ceasefire ended after the Moroccan military broke into a southern no-go buffer zone on November 13th, 2020, to attack Sahrawi civilians and exchange fire with the Polisario Front (Democracy Now). This action came soon after a top U.S. general met with the commander of the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces Southern Zone, which covers Western Sahara. As the Polisario populated regions and Morocco clash, many have been arrested in the occupied territory. These arrests include many of the peaceful protesters, a large proportion of whom are women, who demonstrate inside the capital of Western Sahara, Layouhn. They have been repeatedly sexually assaulted, beaten, and taken to secret prisons where thousands of Sahrawis have gone to be tortured, killed, or have disappeared for resisting Moroccan occupation (HRW).
The U.S.-Morocco relationship dates back to 1777 when Morocco was one of the first countries to recognize the U.S. as a nation (U.S. Department of State). Since then, alongside the military aid and funding, the U.S. announced Morocco as its largest non-NATO ally following the Cold War, opening the doors for more military deals. The relationship is mutual as we see that money has flowed both ways. For example, state-owned Moroccan phosphate company, OCP, which operates in Western Sahara, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation before the 2016 election (Vogel). Fast forward to the presidency of Trump and we see that Morocco and Israel have agreed to establish diplomatic relations as part of a U.S. brokered deal. The U.S. is now the first country to recognize Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara in return for relations and strengthening the legitimacy of Israel in occupied Palestine as well as opening the way for more military contracts that will be used to further oppress the Sahrawi people (Cambridge University Press, 318-323).
Democracy Now, an independent journalism website, was one of the first media operations to be able to get inside the country in years. In 2016, the journalism service published an exposé where we see how the Sahrawi people are suffering and their commitments to self-determination and freedom. Some of their stories are highlighted below.
One prominent interview from the publication was with journalist Mohamed Mayara who speaks about the torture and murder that his family faced at hands of Moroccan authority. He notes, “my father was one of 4 brothers kidnapped…he was kidnapped sent to jail, spent one year and six months and was killed after being tortured” (Democracy Now). When asked about what kind of risk he takes speaking to a reporter based in the western world he replied, “I have a seven-year-old daughter, I tell her about my father who was kidnapped, I tried to teach her that one day that I will face the same fate…so I am always waiting” (Democracy Now). And when asked why he takes that risk despite all the persecution he has witnessed he states, “Because I think this engagement is the duty of freedom” (Democracy Now).
Elghalia Djimi, Vice President of ASVDH, which is an association that traces the files of Sahrawi disappearance victims and former victim of forced disappearance herself, was asked what had happened to her as a victim of forced disappearance. She responded, “What happened to me happened to all prisoners…Moroccan state and secret police used dogs as a form of torture…they stripped me naked…I lost all my hair because of the chemicals they used on my head chemicals used on my head…” (Democracy Now). She was waterboarded, beaten with a baton on her feet, threatened with rape, and much worse. Like Mohamed when asked why she was taking such risk she said, “I am not afraid, I took a vow that we have to talk about this issue, if we do not speak out, especially us as victims who have suffered all of this, this problem will remain” (Democracy Now).
What Can You Do?
The situation in Western Sahara is a dire occupation that has been going on for far too long without any sort of broad mainstream coverage or support from the international community. Amnesty International UofT encourages all readers to stay informed on the subject and to contribute to change through various organizations that are still fighting for the native people of Western Sahara: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Front Line Defenders to name a few. Please consider making a financial contribution to these organizations as well.
If you were asked to predict the next century’s emergent human rights issues, what would you say? There’s no shortage of crises to choose from. Anxieties among laymen and experts alike span environmental, political, and technological topics. The United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner has issued warnings regarding climate change’s effects on the rights to development, food, sanitation and housing (OHCHR, 2015). The International Journal on Human Rights has similarly predicted compounding crises of poverty, urban development and increasingly isolationist immigration policy (Petrasek, 2014). The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre has written extensively on the threats that advances in technology like artificial intelligence, automation, and digital information constitute (BHRRC, 2021).
In the face of these formidable challenges, more futuristic and cerebral concerns can lose their potency. I believe that intellectual property rights, AKA IP rights, are a prime example of how highly theoretical concepts can escape public scrutiny. Outside of academia’s ivory tower, IP rights can seem underwhelming compared to broader human rights concerns. In reality, IP rights are shaping the future of freedom of information, access to cultural heritage, artistic expression and Indigenous rights (OHCHR, 2015).
The extent of our day-to-day entanglement with IP’s gargantuan spread could (and has) filled volumes. I couldn’t do it justice in a small article. So instead, I’d like to introduce you to what IP is, the basics of how it works, and a select assortment of ways it’s influencing human rights close to home. It’s my hope that you’ll agree intellectual property rights are instrumental to human rights as a whole and you will engage critically with related issues in future.
So what exactly are IP rights? They’re a legal quantification of intellectual, intangible assets, giving ownership over inventions, designs, creative products, brands and more (CIPO, 2016). At its core, intellectual property rights are about ideas. Who owns an idea? How do they come to own them, and what gives them that right? Who can use an owned idea? Who can profit from it?
Think of a company brand. Maybe the cafe you buy coffee from on your morning commute, or your favourite clothing store. Their company name is an intellectual property right. They own it. They have applied for ownership of that specific name with the Canadian Intellectual Property Right office, secured it, and registered it. Nobody else, individual, corporation or organization, has the right to use that name without the brand’s permission, or outside the scope of fair use outlined in S. 29 of the Canadian Copyright Act (Government of Canada, 1985). That same brand also owns the intellectual rights to their logo and unique products. As an example, Starbucks owns the phrase “Pike Place”.
Songwriters own original melodies and lyrics. Authors own their stories and the unique aspects which comprise them. In a particularly infamous example, Anne Rice, author of Interview with the Vampire, petitioned to have all fan fiction involving any aspect of her publications removed from fan fiction websites (Pauli, 2002). Her push failed, but only because fan fiction is considered transformative and therefore fair use (Kopp, 2021).
Functional inventions and invention blue-prints can also be owned. Vaccines, including the various COVID-19 shots, are patented (Lindsey, 2021). So are genetically modified organisms (Coles, 2021).
This is where we begin to see the obvious overlaps between IP rights and human rights.
In a 2015 submission to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council, science and culture were described as “fundamental to human dignity and autonomy” (Shaheed, 2015, p. 3) Exploitative intellectual ownership practices therefore constitute a uniquely insidious threat. Shaheed, the report’s author, drew on the collective concerns of international human rights organizations when she noted that the tension between IP rights and human rights was characterizable as the tension between community and privatization (2015, p. 3). Knowledge and practices that had traditionally been held as communal property, if not birthright, were being appropriated by private entities (Hale, 2018)
Jenna Rose, a researcher at the Grenoble Ecole de Management’s Business Lab for Society, referred to this process as “scientific colonialism” in an article about biopiracy in the medical field (2016). She described medical biopiracy as follows:
“Often, in the search for new bioresources, researchers draw on local people’s traditional knowledge about the properties of a particular plant, animal or chemical compound. [Biopiracy is] when researchers use traditional knowledge without permission, or exploit the cultures they’re drawing from.” (2016)
Biopiracy and resource appropriation is an ongoing issue in agriculture as well. Monsanto, a genetically modified seeds distributor, has been named by Indigenous activists as one of the largest corporate biopirates around today (LaDuke, 2005, p. 115). Seeds were historically common property. Farmers would collect seeds through progressive harvests, effectively creating a genetic bank of good farming stock. Some private corporations, Monsanto included, have thrown their weight behind privatizing certain genetic materials, using the genetic modification of existing crops as grounds for ownership. Companies like Monsanto are known for “creating sterile seeds or requiring farmers to sign contracts stating that they will not save seeds from Monsanto’s crops.” (LaDuke, 2005, p. 115) A 2004 Canadian legal case, Monsanto Canada Inc. v Schmeiser, set a legal precedent with far-reaching implications across agriculture.
As LaDuke describes it, “in Monsanto’s notorious case of Percy Schmeiser of Bruno, Saskatchewan, a lifetime’s work in seeds garnered from careful plant breeding was almost ruined by pollen blown in from [Monsanto’s] neighbouring fields of Roundup Ready canola.” (2005, p. 115). Schmeiser gathered seeds from the crops that had sprung up along his property line for use in planting. He was sued for patent infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Monsanto’s favour (SCC, 2004). Note that Schmeiser had not intended to infringe on any patenting claim. Circumstances blew viable Monsanto seeds into his field, contaminating his genetic seed bank. Schmeiser was held to be in violation of Monsanto’s patenting but was not financially liable because the seeds were of mitigable benefit without Roundup Ready chemical spray, which Schmeiser did not have (Cullet, 2004).
A basic principal of the Supreme Court’s finding was that ignorance of infringement is not a defence for it (BYU, n.d.). This raised alarming speculative questions for activists and farmers alike. How are farmers supposed to know if a crop growing on their property is the genetic copyright of another company? If they’re financially liable for any profit they earn from a GMO, irrespective of their knowledge of that crop’s copyright status, how can they protect themselves? This question is particularly relevant in light of the unsupervised cross-breeding of GMO’s and non-GMO’s (The Royal Society, 2016). While humans are beholden to IP law, pollinating agents like insects, birds and wind are not. What happens when accidental pollination inevitably occurs and alters the composition of a farmer’s crop?
Biopiracy and the copyrighting of natural resources are consequently indicative of two emerging problems. Firstly, the appropriation of a community’s heritage and the subsequent exclusion of that community from their traditional resource. Secondly, the “developmental monoculture and agenda underscoring Global IP regimes and their exploitative extension […] indigenous communities are now being increasingly compelled to defend their culture at, what is regarded by dominant Western narratives as, the cost of the public domain.” (IP Osgoode, 2000) Non-Indigenous farmers are similarly burdened by larger monopolies’ exploitation of genetic patenting at the expense of smaller agriculture.
IP and human rights are also competing in the medical sphere. Earlier in this article, I mentioned that the COVID-19 vaccine is held under patenting. Amnesty International issued a report on that patenting earlier this year, stating in no uncertain terms that the monopolistic hold select pharmaceutical manufacturers have on the vaccine is obstructing poor and developing nations from accessing life-saving treatment (Amnesty International, 2021, p. 4).
“While Europe, the US and a handful of other states emerged from lockdown […] parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America plunged into renewed crises, pushing ill-equipped health systems to the brink and causing tens of thousands of preventable deaths every week […] Despite receiving billions of dollars in government funding and advance orders which effectively removed risks normally associated with the development of medicines, vaccine developers have monopolized intellectual property, blocked technology transfers, and lobbied aggressively against measures that would expand the global manufacturing of vaccines. Some companies- Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna— have so far delivered almost exclusively to rich countries, putting profit before access to health for all.” (Amnesty International, 2021, p.4)
Prior to the release of Amnesty’s report, Pfizer was making headlines for publicly opposing the US administration’s call to waive COVID vaccine patent rights (Breuninger, 2021). None of the three companies named by Amnesty have since waived their IP protection.
I hope I’ve been able to illustrate how the implementation of IP rights can sometimes stretch beyond the reasonable scope. As a final, more light-hearted example of this phenomenon, consider reality t.v. celebrity Kylie Jenner’s attempts to trademark the name ‘KYLIE’. Her initial application was challenged by Kylie Minogue. Minogue’s legal team argued that Jenner’s application should be refused, on the grounds that it “would lead to confusion among consumers between the two Kylies […] The USPTO commonly refuses to register trademarks when the applied-for mark is confusingly [sic] similar to other, already-registered marks.” (TFL, 2019) Anyone else named Kylie who had used or intended to use their name in the course of doing business would likely have similar concerns.
While this seems like a silly example, many communities and organizations take the intellectual ownership of genetic materials, natural resources and vital medical treatment just as seriously as you might take somebody else claiming ownership of your name. And rightly so.
The United Nations have acknowledged every human’s right to food, medical care, participation in their community’s cultural life, and share in the benefits of scientific advancement (UN, 2021). IP rights should not invalidate the basic human rights which sustain and define us. They are expressions of collective history, family traditions and personal identity. To patent and copyright them is to patent and copyright our ways of life.
It is important to note that IP rights are not, as a whole, a threat to human rights. To the contrary, they can be used to protect consumers, entrepreneurs and artists from exploitation (US Chamber of Commerce, 2009). Yet like so many other things, its practice can be manipulated to serve private interests at the expense of others. Critically interacting with IP rights at every stage of their development and implementation is integral to insuring they serve us, rather than harm us.
Murderers, robbers, kidnappers, or even the occasional white-collar embezzler come to mind when most people think of the type of people in jail. But behind the walls of a perpetually dismal-looking compound in northwestern Tehran, journalists, activists, and academics are detained in what is known as Evin prison, specifically Section 209, 240, and 235 (Saunders, 2007). In fact, it’s housed so many of them that the facility often takes the nickname “Evin University.”
Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Evin has been used by the clerics to hold “political prisoners,” most of whom have never been charged with anything but are usually accused of being spies with an agenda to undermine and act against the theocratic regime (Saunders, 2007). It is obvious however, given the high concentration of intellectuals who are arrested, that espionage is the pseudo-accusation that officials fall back on in order to capture anyone who may potentially speak out against the corruption of the government. Esha Momeni, for example, was a student arrested in 2008 for “acting against national security” (Dahl, 2008). What did she do, exactly? Momeni was conducting research and interviews as part of her research into the women’s rights movement under the Islamic Republic (Dahl, 2008). Authorities later searched her home and confiscated the films that were supposed to be part of her project (Dahl, 2008). Marzieh Rasouli, a journalist and blogger, is another example (McCann, 2014). Her many works for reformist publications on topics of arts and culture prompted the accusations of “spreading propaganda against the system” and “disturbing public order” (McCann, 2014). She was detained in 2014 (McCann, 2014. There are countless others; bloggers, journalists, student activists, film makers, and artists who have been condemned to Evin for nothing other than their dissenting voices.
Deprivation of free speech in Iran is a human rights violation in itself, but the conditions and actions that activists are subjected to in the gloomy cells of Evin are beyond brutal. Amnesty’s own documentations describe multiple methods of torture, ranging from mock executions and floggings, to sexual violence and denial of medical care (Amnesty International, 2021). One of the most notorious torture methods is known as white torture, which is entirely psychological (Human Rights Watch, 2004). It is a form of prolonged solitary confinement that is used with the intention of breaking spirit in order to elicit confessions to false accusations (Human Rights Watch, 2004).
One prisoner said:
“Since I left Evin, I have not been able to sleep without sleeping pills. It is terrible. The loneliness never leaves you, long after you are “free.” Every door that is closed on you, it affects you. This is why we call it “white torture.” They get what they want without having to hit you. They know enough about you to control the information that you get: they can make you believe that the president has resigned, that they have your wife, that someone you trust has told them lies about you. You begin to break. And once you break, they have control. And then you begin to confess.” (Nabavi, 2004)
Another source asserts to multiple daily interrogations that last up to six hours (Human Rights Watch, 2004). Many former prisoners have said that the interrogations don’t consist of relevant questions and instead make invasive inquiries into their personal lives (e.g sexual endeavours) (Human Rights Watch, 2004). They’ve also said that at each interrogation they were given a sheet of blank paper upon which they were told to confess (Human Rights Watch, 2004). Additionally, interrogators threaten indefinite imprisonment and torture of family members in order to coerce innocent people into recording or signing a confession to their alleged crimes (Human Rights Watch, 2004).
Stories of Evin prison have circulated for years, whether in public media or within circles of Iranians. The threat of torture and possible execution behind the bars of Evin hang over the heads of any Iranian with a regime-contradicting voice. The abhorrent practices of Evin and prisons that have since used its structure as a foundation, are in violation of human rights. As people, regardless of nationality, it is our moral responsibility to speak up for those who cannot in order to spread awareness. Though it sounds futile, one of the biggest contributions you can make is staying informed and actively sharing these peoples’ stories. Knowledge is power; the more people talk about these violations, the harder it becomes to ignore them, the closer we get to change.
Sources
Amnesty International. (2021, August 26). Iran: Leaked video footage from Evin Prison offers rare glimpse of cruelty against prisoners. Amnesty International. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/08/iran-leaked-video-footage-from-evin-prison-offers-rare-glimpse-of-cruelty-against-prisoners/.
Dahl, F. (2008, November 4). Iran holds student living in U.S. on security charges. Iran focus. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from https://web.archive.org/web/20090416194547/http://www.iranfocus.com/en/women/iran-holds-student-living-in-u.s.-on-security-charges-16619.html.
Human Rights Watch. (June 2004). “Like the Dead in Their Coffins”: Torture, Detention, and the Crushing of Dissent in Iran (Vol 16 No. 2). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/iran0604/index.htm
Nabavi, Ebrahim. (2004, January 8). Telephone interviews with Human Rights Watch
McCann, C. (2014, July 16). Iran: Journalist and blogger Marzieh Rasouli imprisoned and facing flogging. PEN International. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from https://www.pen-international.org/news/iran-journalist-and-blogger-marzieh-rasouli-imprisoned-and-facing-flogging.
Saunders, D. (2007, February 19). Few know who is held behind the tiled walls of Tehran’s evin prison. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/few-know-who-is-held-behind-the-tiled-walls-of-tehrans-evin-prison/article679258/.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has been going on for a little over a year now, I would like to first remind everyone to stay safe, wear masks and wash our hands. It is critical that we still encourage safety measures, even if we are vaccinated and in person. The topic discussed in this short essay will be on anti-Asian racism and the effects it has had on the Asian community.
Recently, the Asian community has experienced some successes in the aspects of pop culture with Shang Chi, Squid Game, K-pop and various Asian beauty products making large impacts across the globe. Despite this success and reputation boost for the Asian community, we cannot forget the hate and discrimination Asians have faced throughout history, particularly during this past year and how that has affected the Asian community. Anti-Asian sentiment was reignited last December, when the first cases of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus arrived in North America. Almost immediately, the Asian community was berated and assaulted by people looking for something to blame for the state of the world.
It did not help that government officials from various countries including the United States, Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, and France were making statements that either directly or indirectly hinted towards incitement and/or encouragement of anti-Asian racism and xenophobia. In Italy, one governor told journalists that Italians would be better at dealing with the virus than the Chinese because of their “culturally strong attention to hygiene, washing hands, taking showers, whereas we have all seen the Chinese eating mice alive.” (Human Rights Watch). Among these negative statements, the most famous has been the term “Chinese virus” used by Trump. These statements made by professional government officials and leaders spurred even harsher attacks against the Asian community.
Since the initial outbreak in November 2019, people of Asian descent have been subjected to derogatory language in public, social media, and government reports all around the world. The community has been the victim of physical attacks and racist actions that all lead back to the virus. There have been cases of violent threats in the UK and Australia, while reports of serious attacks spread through Spain and the United States. (Human Rights Watch) Canada is not an exception. Since the pandemic started, there have been over 1128 cases of attacks against Asians reported, with many more unknown. (Katherine Lee).
How do Asians feel about these racist acts and threats directed at them? Research from Alice Chen, Arminée Kazanjian and Hubert Wong discuss how individuals of Asian descent find it harder to seek help for mental illness. This is due to cultural biases and perceptions of the system along with pressures to save face and endure. There are fewer sensitive approaches to mental health in Asian culture, leading many people to experience confusion and doubt in the face of blatant and violent discrimination within their neighborhoods. Many individuals of Asian descent already have a hard time staying quiet about mental illness, and anti-Asian racism only amplifies that. Psychologist Helen Hsu has previous stated in an interview that “I’ve heard a lot of Asian patients say things like, ‘Well, my family said to work hard and stay quiet, then everything will be fine.’” (Katherine Lee). Societal pressures are also what drives those who are a part of the Asian community to stay silent about their struggles. In her article, Katherine Lee writes that Asians are among the wealthier racialized communities and are considered the model minority by the West. Due to these perceptions and beliefs, many people in the West don’t believe Asians are struggling and consider their mental health issues “a false narrative”.
Despite the recent success associated with various Asian entertainment groups and trends, we cannot forget the extreme amounts of anti-Asian racism that have been occurring since the outbreak of the virus. Some ways we can stop this racism today include educating yourself about the history of racism in the Asian community, providing resources to victims of violence, addressing mental health in racialized communities, and donating to various non-profitable organizations such as The Asian Mental Health Project.
Chen, Alice W., et al. “Why Do Chinese Canadians Not Consult Mental Health Services: Health Status, Language or Culture?” Transcultural Psychiatry, vol. 46, no. 4, Dec. 2009, pp. 623–641, doi:10.1177/1363461509351374.
Editor’s Note:
Image is free to use with no attribution required.
As the holidays season has fallen upon us, I have been reflecting on this time last year. It was a time characterized by rising cases, near constant anxiety, and perpetual isolation. I remember the distinct feeling of longing for my family and friends. During a period of joy, light, music, food and love, the winter felt colder and the nights longer. The holidays, typically a joyous break from traditional monotony, became a bittersweet period of mourning what was lost. This year we can travel again, see our vaccinated older relatives safely, and spend time together in conversation over meals cooked with endless love and dedication. With that being said, the one part of holidays that we participated in last year and this year, the material exchange of goods, feels particularly relevant to discuss.
Although the holidays are a time of joy, they are also characterized by the wasteful production and consumption of an immense number of unnecessary products. We typically generate 3 million tonnes of extra waste in the month of January, during the holiday season, where 80,000 tonnes of clothing are included in this tally. Though we enjoy giving and receiving gifts during this period, Zero Waste Canada cites that within 6 months, only 1% of everything the average person buys is still in use and the other 99% has been discarded.
In the current age of constant advertisements and accessible clothing/products around us, the holidays have become an opportunity for marketing by businesses and consumption of cheap goods for family and friends. These goods particularly include holiday themed items and exorbitant amounts of clothing. As opposed to looking forward to a time for family, friends and relaxation, little kids look forward to Christmas with long lists for Santa. Moreover, parents search nearby department stores, online commerce platforms, and malls for goods to satisfy those lists. Gift giving, as it has evolved in today’s consumerist culture, sometimes loses the special feeling of a personal touch or meaningful message associated with the actual good itself.
Many people, young and old, wish for clothing around Christmas. Considering this demand, people justifiably often turn to cheaper options and end up buying fast fashion items for their loved ones. However, the consequences of these decisions are disproportionately correlated to the the low-price tag on the item. Fast fashion labels such as Gap, H&M, Zara and many others are able to keep their prices relatively low due to mass production of their clothing using cheap materials in countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Cambodia that have relatively inconsequential labor laws. Therefore, the garment workers receive low wages and are forced to work incredibly long hours. In a truly horrific example, The Guardian reported that at least 540 female garment workers in Bangladesh disclosed threats and sexual abuse in their workplaces, which included factories for H&M and The Gap, between January and May 2018. The Guardian wrote that the abuse is a result of the global supply chain structure. H&M and The Gap’s fast fashion supply chain model creates unreasonable production targets and low bidding costs, resulting in employees (the majority of whom are women) working overtime hours without additional compensation and facing pressure to work quickly.
Sadly, these conditions worsened further during the pandemic. When we were online shopping for clothing, shoes, and other goods that we thought we needed or as an activity to pass the time during the pandemic, the garment workers in factories were further suffering from increasingly dangerous conditions exacerbated by suspended payments. The Clean Clothes Campaign interviewed 49 garment workers in these countries, to which 70% responded they had experienced delayed payments and lower wages than before the pandemic. Given wages that are barely capable of supporting life and obtaining food to sustain families before these cuts, the reality of delayed or lowered wages were matters of life and death for these families. These brands, in their unrelenting dedication to low prices and mass production of goods for consumers, were pushing their workers beyond their breaking points during the pandemic. The Clean Clothes Campaign reported that a garment worker in a factory that supplied products for H&M in Bangladesh detailed to a reporter that “We have been severely exploited in the name of pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic was not our fault, but it was us who were given less than half of our normal salary. At first we protested, but the factory management said, ‘If you protest or form a union, you will not get a penny from us and you will not only lose your job, but also you will be evicted from this area and will never get a job in any other factory again.’ So, none of us could form a union in this factory.” In addition, at the beginning of the pandemic, the Clean Clothes Campaign reports that the said companies refused to pay for an estimated $40 million worth of clothing and goods that were already produced or in production.
During the holiday season and in the time afterwards, I hope that we can remember what we were missing this time last year and prioritize time spent together. Our planet and its people cannot sustain the current culture of unrelenting consumerism. Therefore, I ask that we consider shopping for items that are multipurpose and/or multiuse. I also request that we demand as much as possible from companies that are dedicated to fair treatment and wages for their workers and they take action to manage waste effectively. Moreover, if more socially/environmentally conscious products are out of the price range of consumers, with some extra time spent looking, great quality options can be found at second-hand stores. Remember that the consequences of an item bought and discarded have implications for people working to make these products, and the nations who accept the pollution and mass waste produced in North America, thousands of miles away.
References:
Hetherington, Barb, et al. “Zero Waste Christmas.” Zero Waste Canada , Zero Waste Canada, 2017, http://zerowastecanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Zero-Waste-Christmas.pdf.
Oshri, Hadari. “Council Post: Three Reasons Why Fast Fashion Is Becoming a Problem (and What to Do about It).” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 May 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2019/05/13/three-reasons-why-fast-fashion-is-beco ming-a-problem-and-what-to-do-about-it/?sh=670f7794144b.
Jessop, Andy. “Discover the Environmental Impact of the Christmas Season.” Commercial Waste, 8 Dec. 2020, https://commercialwaste.trade/the-true-cost-of-christmas/. “Abuse Is Daily Reality for Female Garment Workers for GAP and H&M, Says Report.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 June 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jun/05/female-garment-workersgap-hm-south-asia.
“H&M, Nike and Primark Use Pandemic to Squeeze Factory Workers in Production Countries Even More.” Clean Clothes Campaign, Clean Clothes Campaign , 30 June 2021, https://cleanclothes.org/news/2021/hm-nike-and-primark-use-pandemic-to-squeeze-factor y-workers-in-production-countries-even-more.
Image Attributions: HM christmas, HM, November 9, 2017 https://galleriariga.lv/en/hm-svetku-kolekcija-ir-klat/ Gap switches to “Merry Christmas”, Politics Red, December 8, 2013 https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2013/12/the-gap-switches-to-merry-christmas/ Zara “party wear”, Zara, 2021 https://www.zara.com/ca/en/woman-evening-l1104.html?v1=1906800
The term “freedom of the press” is (loosely) defined as the understanding that communication and expression through various media should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such mediums include (but are not limited to) printed and electronic materials, with a particular emphasis on materials created with the intention of being shared with the public at large. Central to the denotation of this principle is the implied absence of coercion from state or state sponsored actors, not only from the released media product but also in its initial inception and creation (Freedom House).
Why is such a principle so important in the first place? Firstly, one will be hard pressed to consider a free press corps as an ultimate good in and of itself. It will come as a surprise to no one that both written and electronic media outlets are far from being considered bastions of altruism. All media outlets are, at their core, profit seeking entities. Thus, contrary to what one may believe, the truth is not in their best interest, but only increased engagement with their various media products. With this truth in mind, it is not hard for one to draw a causal link between profit and the perpetuation of discord. As is agreed by many experts ranging from Political Science to Communication Studies, unbridled press corps can often be attributed to enormous public angst (Tsfati 10). For example, divisive ideologies may proliferate, youth may be corrupted before they properly learn how to disseminate information, and even the public at large may be nefariously manipulated, despite their best interests. Amid such circumstances, how could the state not be justified in strongly regulating or even suppressing the press corps?
In light of this line of thinking, one should note that while such concerns are valid, they misunderstand the point. The right to a free press makes no assumptions on the content or quality of that which it facilitates. Rather, in protecting such a right, what is being defended is not what is being discussed, but the very forum of discussion itself, ensuring that it is open and conducive for public engagement. Thus, crudely summarized, a Free Press is not in itself valuable. Rather, the value in such a vehicle lies in its inherent ability to facilitate criticism, both of the government and of society at large (Charles Koch Institute).
This is also the reason why even avowedly liberal governments may find themselves at odds with the principle of ‘Freedom of the Press”. The private institutions who champion this principle naturally come to embody all that power abhors, power both new and entrenched. While this fact has been studied and proven extensively, it is also intuitive, for power does not respond well to criticism (Freedom House).
For a real-world example of such behavior, one need look no further than Belarus. Often referred to as ‘Europe’s Last Dictatorship’, suppression of what little freedom the nation’s press corps had manage to secure for itself was brutally suppressed and continues to be suppressed amidst the ongoing protests surrounding President Alexander Lukashenko’s administration. One of the most shocking displays of suppression came in May of 2021, when the Belarusian government grounded an international Ryanair flight bound for Vilnius, arresting the Belarusian dissident journalist Roman Protasevich. Photographs taken nearly two months after his arrest suggest that Protasevich had been subject to various methods of torture during his time in government custody (Tétrault-Farber 2).
While not many efforts to suppress the freedom of a nation’s press corps are quite as shockingly blatant as those that have occurred in Belarus in recent months, such activity is by no means unique to Belarus. In the neighboring country of Russia, it is not uncommon for reporters to receive letters directly from the Kremlin, requesting their immediate resignation. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for publicly funded Russian companies to buyout majority stakeholders in various private media companies, companies that often have no immediate relation to the nature of their work (Corbus 11). For example, the largest stakeholder of REN-TV, widely lauded as Russia’s last nationwide television network with independent news programming, is owned by a subsidiary of Severstal, Russia’s second largest government owned steel company, in a buyout first initiated in 2006 (Kishkovsky 4).
On must realize that the protection of a free press is a constant war rather than a one-off battle. While government authorities are often its traditional enemies, in the modern age one must realize that everyone is a threat to its existence. Anyone can create content with the power to influence anyone. Thus, even in a liberal society, the integrity of the press corps can be eroded, and furthermore, such erosion can often be manipulated to seem in the public’s best interest.
For example, with regards to internet regulation laws in the United States, news aggregating applications are simultaneously being projected as biased against conservatives, and much too willing in the promotion of far-right ideology, divisive ideology which at once finds a home within conservative bases (Samples 11). Thus, what is to be done? How much regulation is enough? How much is too much? How much is too little? How is one to balance the ideal of a free and open medium with a medium that is far too open to manipulation? These are open questions that must be asked on a continuous basis by all who truly believe themselves to be true defenders of democracy and its associated liberal ideals. For, threats to a free press can as easily come from within, via popular legislation, or they may come from without, via tyrannical government.
Beyond becoming a critical consumer of media rhetoric and policy, as is outlined above, what else may one do to further ensure that the Freedom of the Press is respected? Hundreds, if not thousands of journalists are unjustly imprisoned across the world every year for nothing other than simply making their opinions known to the world. While such a phenomenon certainly is not new, the advent of digital activism ensures that everybody can express solidarity with these victims of conscience, ensuring that justice is done to them and their cause. Amnesty International’s Write for Rights campaign often highlights the plights of several political prisoners, among whom several are often journalists or those specifically targeted by their governments for their views (Write for Rights).
All are encouraged to participate in such events, as it is only through these individual initiatives that lasting change and protection for the many may be realized.
In July of 2020, the Federal Court of Canada passed a ruling that withdrew Canada from their participation within the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) (Canadian Council for Refugees [CCR], 2020). An agreement which legalized the transfer of refugees back to whatever “safe” country they landed in first, either Canada or the United States (Government of Canada). The proposed withdrawal from this agreement was brought forth on the grounds of the egregious conditions in which the United States treated those who were sent back from Canada, including arbitrary imprisonment, psychological abuse, and extreme human rights abuses (CCR, 2020). The court justified their decision to leave the STCA because of the United States clear and appalling violations of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCR, 2020). The section in which gives all persons the equal right to security and liberty, a right infringed upon by the erroneous treatment of refugees in the U.S. (CCR, 2020).
Almost one year later, in June of 2021, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) released a report detailing the appalling treatment of immigrants in Canada, those in which are remarkably similar to the conditions for which Canada left the STCA (Gros et al., 2021). According to this report, Canada imprisons thousands of people a year on immigration related charges, often involving abusive behaviour (Gros et al., 2021). Not only are the reasons for which these immigrants are detained not disclosed or arbitrary, but their release dates are kept from them as well (Gros et al., 2021). During their imprisonment, immigrant detainees face some of the most putative measures, including being housed in maximum security prisons, and emplaced into solitary confinement, finding that these conditions were even harsher for Black immigrants, and those with psychosocial disabilities (Gros et al., 2021). These abuses have had devastatingly severe impacts on the mental health of these immigrants, often resulting in feelings of hopelessness, failure, and sometimes suicide (Gros et al., 2021).
It is not difficult to draw the parallels between this abuse, arbitrary detainment, and human rights violations, that not less than a year ago Canada’s courts denounced the United States for (CCR, 2020). Both HRW and AI hold that something must be done to eradicate these atrocious conditions and treatment (Gros et al., 2021). A report done in 2016, in conjunction with the University of Toronto, AI, and many other organizations, provided suggestions for eliminating these abuses (Muscati, 2016). Including, but not limited to, establishing an independent body to which the Canadian Border Patrol Service Agency (CBSA) is held accountable, modifying existing laws and regulations, imposing requirements to access of essential services for both physical and mental health, and increasing funding to find safe, healthy, and adequate housing for immigration detainees (Muscati, 2016). Since this, both the CBSA and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada have responded, declaring their intentions to look further into this issue, but action has yet to be seen (Ossowski, 2021; Wex, 2021). While Canada may never change their approach to this issue, there is hope through advocacy by AI, HRW, and institutions like UofT, that there will be amendments in the future.
Michael Korvig and Michael Spavor, known as the “two Michaels,” returned to Canada after spending over 1000 days detained in China. Their collective story is a harrowing example of China’s human rights violations and willingness to use people as a means for geopolitical gain. Now that they are home and present in the minds of Canadians and others, it is essential to report their treatment while in China accurately. Background information is necessary to understand the severity of the tribulation the two Michaels faced.
In early December of 2018, a woman named Meng Wanzhou was about to make a layover stop in Canada while flying to Mexico (Corera, 2020). Nothing, in particular, made this stopover in Vancouver strange, but Wanzhou was no ordinary tourist. Wanzhou is the chief financial officer of Huawei, and the United States wanted her on charges of bank and wire fraud that helped her company circumnavigate the US sanction on Iran (Karphal, 2020). As soon as she landed in Vancouver, Canadian officials arrested her and prepared her extradition case to the States. Several days later, Michael Spavor and Michael Korvig were detained in China.
Korvig, a former diplomat, and Spavor, a businessman, were convicted of vague espionage and spying charges, with the latter being sentenced to 11 years in prison by Chinese courts (Aziz, 2021). Many people speculated that the arrests were an act of retaliation by the Chinese government after the arrest of Wanzhou in Canada. Despite Canadian and American attempts to persuade China into dropping the charges, the two men would go on to spend nearly three years of their lives detained. The conditions of their detention were brutal, and they highlight the gross and arbitrary imprisonment tactics employed by the Chinese government.
Korvig and Spavor spent most of their imprisonment completely cut-off from the outside world. Chinese officials allowed the two men to make only a handful of phone calls throughout their captivity while also barring Canadian diplomats from reaching them (Coletta, 2021). To put into perspective how isolated they were, Korvig and Spavor appeared to be missing common knowledge about current international events. For example, after a long-overdue meeting with a consular in October of 2020, Korvig was finally informed that the pandemic had spread across the world, resulting in the death of millions (Hopper, 2021). Deprived of basic information pertaining to current events, Korvig and Spavor spent their days detached and unaware of what was happening in the outside world.
Isolation was not the only thing the two Michaels had to cope with during their detainment, as the actual physical conditions of the prison cells were inhumane. Reports determined that both men were forced to live in tiny cells filled with other prisoners and were denied the ability to leave (Hopper, 2021). Unlike Western prisons, these detainment centres contain no communal spaces such as exercise yards or dining halls. Besides the confined, brutal living conditions, the two Micheals were also subject to psychological torment. The bright lighting of the cell was kept on during all hours of the day, allowing for little rest, and the two were treated to daily integrations by Chinese authorities (Nossal, 2021). The Chinese government’s mental and emotional abuses inflicted on Korvig and Spavor are unspeakable.
The arbitrary conditions that the Korvig and Spavor were subject to are gross inflictions on human rights. It has been a massive relief to have both men return home. However, it is important to acknowledge that these isolation conditions, physical confinement, and psychological abuse are not unique to the two Michaels. China has been detaining people in this brutal fashion long before the Korvig and Spavor were sentenced to prison there. The Chinese government will continue to act in such a manner until they face a firm international stance. No human being should be subject to such treatment.
References:
Aziz, Saba. “ ‘Free at last’: Canadian Michael Korvig, wife speak about emotional return from China.” Global News, 26 Sep. 2021,
Image Attribution: Michael Korvig and Michael Spavor after landing in Calgary and being greeted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (image from The Globe and Mail)
There shall be no justification for what the government of Zimbabwe has done to its citizens. Led by republican President Emmerson Mnangagwa, the government has once again failed the people of Zimbabwe. In Mnangagwa’s election speech in 2017, he promised to improve the quality of the government and reach across political ethnic and racial lines to strengthen Zimbabwe’s democracy (Zimbabwe: An Opportunity for Reform?). Filled with hope, Zimbabweans anticipated a political evolution. Yet, after Zimbabwe’s military brought an end to 37 years of rule by former president Robert Mugabe’s authoritarian regime, it’s continual presence as a key political player complicated Mnangagwa’s task of reinstituting effective governance (Zimbabwe’s “Military-assisted Transition” and Prospects for Recovery). On August 7, 2020, Zimbabwean police transferred prominent journalist, Hopewell Chin’ono, and opposition leader, Jacob Ngarivhume, to the infamous Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison (Chigumadzi, 1). Both were arrested and accused of inciting police violence, while in reality, the government played a prominent role in unreasonably enforcing violence amongst the protesters (Chigumadzi, 1). The treatment they received was terrible, being put in leg iron casts, and denied of bail, private visits with lawyers and family, food and adequate covid-19 precautions (Chigumadzi, 1). However, this is only one of the many issues that encapsulate the political persecution and public repression of Zimbabwe’s military state, marking the beginning of social unrest among Zimbabweans. In response to the thousands of protesters who marched on the streets, the government ordered a vicious attack – deploying soldiers as well as police force (Piguo, 1). To say the least, groups of protestors have also engaged in intimidation, vandalism, and looting. Though some of it was undeniably orchestrated, most appeared to be spontaneous (Chigumadzi, 1). By referencing the political ideology of the philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill, it justifies the protests and serves as a framework for the defective government’s reconstruction. On the contrary, philosopher Edmond Burke’s political ideology fails to draw on the issue at hand, undermining the significance of innovation within a political context and favouring President Mnangagwa’s absurd policies and decisions.
John Stuart Mill was a liberal during the nineteenth-century, and in the modernized society, his ideology and written work continue to resonate with politicians. He is often brought up during discussions of social justice and income inequality, and his theories criticized privilege, oppression, and injustice. Mill’s theory of three liberties: the absolute freedom of opinion of sentiment, liberty to pursue one’s own tastes and pursuits, and liberty of combination among individuals, justify the protester’s motives of protesting. In his first liberty, he understood that silencing the expression of an opinion as peculiarly evil, “robbing the human race.” His theory supports the protesters’ purpose for attacking the government’s decision to subjugate opposing voices through violence. Further, this theory also validates the protesters’ resentment towards the government’s resolution to block internet services, suspending the flow of information and bringing about the prevalent confusion (Piguo, 3). Hence, giving the protesters justified reasons to protest for their concerns about the absence of freedom. Nonetheless, in Mill’s second liberty, he truly believed in “the liberty to pursue one’s own taste and pursuits,” where people should be allowed to live their lives exactly how they see fit, as long as this does not harm others in their society. Though modern-day politicians might refute Mill’s theory for it offers society a disproportionate amount of independence and freedom, but his individualistic values support the citizens’ protests for their futuristic expectations. However, only if we exclude the casualties from the physical encounters between the police force and protesters that created disunity within Zimbabwe. Mill’s liberal individualistic conception is also seen in his third liberty which underlines an individual’s freedom of choice to form groups of human rights activists, as long as this does not harm others in their society. If individuals of Zimbabwe wish to form an opposing stance to the government in the hope of advocating the respect for fundamental human rights, they should be entitled to do so. These ideas from Mill’s political philosophy strengthen the motives of protest and directly contradict Zimbabwe’s traditionalism, and unless convictions turn against this mindset, the demand for continuing traditions will only increase.
In addition, Mill valued individualism, his theory could be used to remodel and embellish the dictatorial government as a whole. Mill’s Harm Principle embodies the notion that “the sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This could prompt the government to limit its unreasonable use of assault towards opposing groups and politicians as it is unreasonable to exercise power over protesters, except a minority of protesters who participated in lootings. Though the government’s order of violence on its citizens could be appropriated as an act of “self-protection” for state owned properties and police officers, it is evident that the government has a distorted idea of restricting opposing voices to retain its power. Accordingly, the government should reevaluate its attitude towards individual rights and achieving social utility based on Mill’s values, striking a balance between individual autonomy and government interference to limit freedoms in the interest of preventing harm to others. Individual protesters should have the freedom to defend their rights subsequent to the unlawful arrests and restraint of freedom made by the police and military, rejecting the government’s long term abuse of power. In order to achieve a balance, the government should cease its human rights violations, such as the invasion of privacy, obstruction of movement and limitation of access to information by peacefully reaching a consensus with the protesters and acknowledging their stance. Effectively, the government should utilize Mill’s Harm Principle to amend its structure, and manage opposing groups democratically.
On the other end of the political spectrum, the philosophy of Edmond Burke, the founder of conservatism would support the Zimbabwean government in defending contemporary arrangements against both idealistic desires and innovative schemes of reform though it is shown to be over-optimistic and out of date. Given that Burke’s ideology outlines the tradition and custom of the social contract, he does not consider innovative reforms suggested by citizens as necessary to the success of a country. He regards innovation as the result of a selfish temper and confined views, reinforcing the government’s desire to deny democratic changes from an authoritarian state. This theory also highlights the characteristics of conservatism seen in our contemporary society. Along with the rejection of innovation shown by the Zimbabwean government, Burke’s theory rejects the idea of changes in the government because he believed, “the entire progression of the commonwealth would be demolished.” Despite that, the government of Zimbabwe failed to take into account that the dismissal of these proposed changes violates democratic principles in our modern society, which are different from Burke’s conservative theory. The government’s disbelief in new changes to prevent the loss of power, similar to Burke’s theory, led to Zimbabwe’s failure in achieving democracy. Burke implied that the present generation does not have the right to ask for a change in politics because it would risk the country becoming a disaster: “It [is not] among [this generation’s] rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the inheritance by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society, hazarding to leave to those who came after them a ruin instead of a habitation.” This further empowers the Zimbabwean government in casually making decisions to benefit itself, and continues to justify public repression and freedom violations. Despite he urged people to understand the significance in teaching these successors as little to respect their contrivances as they had themselves respected the institutions of their forefathers, the consequences of his conservative thinking contradicts his belief.
Contrary to Mill’s theories, Burke’s perception of a government body implies the idea that citizens cannot depose an oppressive government due to the risk of a disaster. Despite that, the Zimbabwean government’s introduction of fiscal and economic reforms led to the hyperinflation of goods and services (Piguo, 10). As well, the values of ordinary citizens’ income and savings have been cut by more than half, further impoverishing an already struggling population (Piguo, 10). This counters Burke’s theory, indicating that an oppressive government is the cause of disaster, not the opposing opinions of citizens. Further, Burke believed that social achievements should be built up over time and suggested governments to find a compromise between what everyone wants and what’s beneficial to society from a historic point of view. However, as society develops, fixating on historic views in modern-day democracy brings on contradiction. After the ousting of Zimbabwe’s former authoritarian government, it marked a change, defying historical political values, and submitting to presentist democratic values. Yet the government’s response to violence towards the protests shows the embedded military influence in decision making, reflecting the fear of losing power. Similar to the government’s worries, Burke believes a change in government operation might trigger the fall of a government. He believed that the experience and obstacles a government had endured in its past should be recognized and preserved, hence rejecting the disposition of a government. Further, there was not an adequate structure that he approved of to act as a guide for changes during his time. Lastly, he viewed the state of government as a living organism, underlining the complexity of a society. Therefore, no one should be able to redirect the power as it might lead to a disaster. Although he recognized that a change in the law is necessary, he thought reforms should be made from a historical perspective. However, this would lower the efficiency of his reform in the ever changing society. Similar to the situation of Zimbabwe, laws aren’t likely to change as it is proven over time that the current system gives the government power over the citizens. Hence, it is seen in both Burke’s theory and the Zimbabwean government’s actions that they both value having power more than beneficial and efficient changes to the community.
Zimbabwe is in desperate need of reform if the government’s aim is to maintain stability and transition into a democratic country. John Stuart Mill’s liberal theories embody both sociality and freedom, guaranteeing freedom to individuals from different ideological groups. His theories underline Zimbabweans’ right to fulfill their interests through the uninterrupted expression of opinions. Supporting Zimbabweans’ humanitarian concerns and holding the faulty government accountable, the Zimbabwean government should take into account Mill’s theories and carry out changes to become a democratic state. On the contrary, Burke’s theories challenge the effectiveness of innovation based upon his old-fashioned thinking and support the Zimbabwean government to a certain extent where both Burke and the government value power over change. His theories are relatively controversial considering many aspects support the authoritarian government’s decisions. Critics believe that the Zimbabwean government is likely to be able to “put a lid” on the unrest and take activists off the streets, emphasizing the need for a reform of the government (Piguo, 22). As time goes by, though both philosopher’s ideologies were beneficial to future generations, being part of the foundation of the establishment of parties and the role of the member of Parliament, we should not be restricted by the views of historical philosophers as their ideas might not be up to date. Politicians should incorporate citizen’s current needs and desires, taking into consideration its effects on the future while making political decisions to form a harmonious society.
Works Cited
JS Mill, On Liberty, 1859.
Mutsaka | AP, Farai. “Scores of Zimbabwe Protesters Arrested, Military in Streets.” Washington
