5112개의 게시물을 찾았습니다.
Today's ('left'-liberal) Hankyoreh published the following 'editorial':
DNA collection to intimidate unions
It has emerged that prosecutors have been collecting DNA samples from workers convicted of engaging in strikes and other activities. The practice, which currently targets workers who took part in a Ssangyong Motor strike and occupation of Daelim Motor, has reportedly been taking place at district prosecutor’s offices across the country since March. Not only does this have strong elements of a human rights violation, but it is an immoderate application of the law that could potentially curtail labor movement activity. It should be immediately halted.
The legal basis for collecting DNA is the Act on the Use and Protection of DNA Identification, the so-called “DNA Act.” Enacted in July 2010, this act allows the collection and storage of DNA from suspects in eleven cases of crime, including child molestation, rape, and drug crimes, in order to allow for efficient investigation of habitual and heinous crimes. The scope of those subjected to DNA collection also includes suspects in acts of violence, home invasion, and property damage as stipulated in the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act. The attitude of the prosecutors is that with this basis, there is no problem whatsoever with collecting DNA from striking workers punished under the latter act.
However, this is a farfetched application of the law, and in addition to containing elements of human rights infringements, it is also an abuse of public authority. First and foremost, taking samples from striking workers is extremely problematic in that it equates them with the perpetrators of heinous crimes. Strikes are both the core of the basic labor rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the most powerful means of protecting a worker’s survival rights. It is also necessarily expressed through collective action.
Even if it is unavoidable to hold workers responsible for physical clashes that occur during that process(*), it is unacceptable to treat them as though they were habitual and shameless criminals. This cannot be seen as anything but contempt for workers and their rights. Around 150 workers were convicted on the basis of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act for the Ssangyong strike. Does this mean that every one of them is a heinous criminal?
There is a strong chance that the sample collection will lead to negative effects such as weakening of the labor movement through its psychological cowing of workers. If people whose criminal punishment is complete are treated as potential offenders and forced to submit DNA, there may be grounds for raising the fundamental human rights issue of double jeopardy.
Even if one sympathizes with the need for the DNA law, the scope of its application cannot be made excessively large. There needs to be a full reexamination of the individuals subject to this law’s application and the method of its implementation. Before then, prosecutors must end their collection of DNA from striking workers.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/471831.html
* Well, once again The Hankyoreh is (somehow) supporting the stance of the ruling class!!!
AFTER THE CRACKDOWN: STATE TERROR AGAINST WORKERS, MEDIA AND POLITICAL ACTIVISTS
Latest news:
Bahraini firms have fired hundreds of mostly Shi'ite workers who went on strike to support pro-democracy protesters, part of a government crackdown, an opposition group said on yesterday.
Bahrain's unions called a general strike on March 13 to support pro-democracy protesters against the (Sunni-led) government who for weeks occupied a square in the capital until "security forces" moved in on March 16. The strike was called off on March 22.
Officials at Batelco, Gulf Air, Bahrain Airport Services and APM Terminals Bahrain said they had laid off more than 200 workers due to absence during the strike...
Bahrain's main opposition group, Wefaq, said it estimated that more than 1,000 workers had been laid off and that most were Shi'ites.
More lay-offs are expected at Bahrain Petroleum (Bapco) which has fired the head of its workers' union. Workers fear that hundreds could be fired at the company after parliament launched an investigation headed by a Sunni hardline deputy.
"Everybody is afraid," a worker who did not wish to be named told Reuters.
Bahrain has increased its arrests of bloggers, activists and Shi'ites, with more than 300 detained and dozens missing since last month's crackdown on the pro-democracy protests.
Bahrain has seen the worst clashes between its Shi'ite majority population (but supported by hundreds of Sunnis, mostly "ordinary" workers) and the Sunni-ruled security forces since the 1990s after pro-democracy protesters, inspired by uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, took to the streets in February.
The "security forces" have killed at least 13 protesters during days of pro-democracy protests and prompted Bahrain to declare martial law and invite troops by Sunni Gulf neighbors... Saudi Arabia and the UAE, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC) sent thousands of troops and riot cops to smash the pro-democracy movement.
After "security forces", supported by the GCC occupation forces, crushed the protests, the government launched a crackdown on opposition activists, Shi'ite villages and media such as the only opposition newspaper, Al-Wasat...
Some related articles:
☞ Dangerous change rattles Bahrain (Asia Times, 4.06)
☞ Bahrain's hospital of ghosts (Al-Jazeera, 4.06)
☞ The Arab counter-revolution is winning (AToL, 3.18)
Juliano Mer-Khamis, the founder of The Freedom Theater in Jenin, was murdered yesterday by unknown assailants. He was shot five times near the theater he founded with former Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade military leader Zakariya Zubeidi. From Israeli and Palestinian heritage, the Nazareth-born Mer-Khamis was famous for his art and activism, clashing with traditional society and the Israeli occupation.
Yesterday's Haaretz reported the following:
Israeli actor Juliano Mer-Khamis shot dead in Jenin
Israeli actor and political activist Juliano Mer-Khamis, 52, was shot dead on Monday outside a theater which he founded in a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin.
Jenin police chief Mohammed Tayyim said Mer-Khamis was shot five times by masked Palestinian militants, but that Israeli security forces were still investigating the circumstances of his murder. A Palestinian ambulance took his body to a nearby checkpoint to be transferred into Israel.
Mer-Khamis' mother, Arna Mer, was an Israeli Jewish activist for Palestinian rights. His father, Saliba Khamis, was a Christian Palestinian. Mer-Khamis was born and raised in Nazareth.
Mer-Khamis was well-known as an actor for his film and theater roles, both in Israel and abroad, and had made a name for himself as a director and a political activist, as well.
Based in Israel, Mer-Khamis was affiliated with the local theater in Jenin, established by his mother in the 1980s. In 2006, Mer-Khamis opened the Freedom Theater in Jenin, along with Zakariya Zubeidi, the former military leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades in that West Bank city.
Zubeidi was appointed co-theater director in an attempt to subdue the ongoing threats voiced against both the institution and Mer-Khamis. The theater itself was torched twice in the past, and the threats persisted despite Zubeidei's appointment.
Some of the criticism focused on the fact that the theater offered co-ed activities, despite prohibition in the Islamic moral code.
Objectors were also outraged when Mer-Khamis staged the play "Animal Farm", in which the young actors played the part of a pig, which Islam considers an impure animal.
Mer Khamis said he had planned to stage The Lieutenant of Inishmore, a satire of armed resistance, but shelved the idea after someone smashed the window of his car.
Jenin governor Qadura Moussa called Mer Khamis a great supporter of the Palestinian people. He said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told him to bring those responsible for his death to justice.
Michael Handesaltz, senior editor and theater critic for Haaretz, described Mer-Khamis as a "great actor, an extraordinary human being whose life-story is part of the tragic reality of this country", who in his death became "another tragic victim of life in the Middle East".
Director Amos Gitai, who directed Mer-Khamis in the 2000 film "Kippur," said in response that he was "shocked" by the murder. "There are people like Juliano, who are radical people, try with their own bodies to serve as a bridge over the gorges of hate. And in Juliano's case its real, he is a larger than life," Gitai said.
"We have been served so many warning signs and calling signs, that I don’t know what will become of us," he added.
Director Avi Nesher, who directed Mer-Khamis in "Rage and Glory" in 1985 said that he felt like a member of his family had died. "He was one of the most talented people I ever worked with," Nesher said, adding that "it is hard to imagine who would want to kill him and why, and it is very disturbing, in the most profound way."
"I don’t understand the murder," he added. "he was a man who was totally there to deal with the things he believed in and I find it hard to understand the twisted rational of the people who did this."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-actor-juliano-mer-khamis-shot-dead-in-jenin-1.354044
Related reports:
☞ 'Juliano's murder most likely pre-meditated assassination' (Haaretz, 4.05)
☞ Israeli peace activist Juliano Mer Khamis shot dead in Jenin (Guardian, 4.04)
☞ Actor Juliano Mer-Khamis shot dead in Jenin (Yedioth Ahronoth, 4.04)
Lies, hypocrisy and hidden agendas. This is what United States President Barack Obama did not dwell on when explaining his Libya doctrine to America and the world. The mind boggles with so many black holes engulfing this splendid little war that is not a war (a "time-limited, scope-limited military action", as per the White House) - compounded with the inability of progressive thinking to condemn, at the same time, the ruthlessness of the Muammar Gaddafi regime and the Anglo-French-American/NATO "humanitarian" bombing... (Asia Times, 3.30)
Here's a small selection of reports/articles/analysis about the latest developments related to the ongoing War on Libya:
☞ Libya: live updates (Guardian, 4.04)
☞ Gaddafi envoy in Europe 'seeking solution' (Al-Jazeera, 4.04)
☞ 2 Qaddafi Sons Are Said to Offer Plan to Push Father Out (NYT, 4.03)
☞ Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels (WSJ, 4.02)
☞ Libyan rebels killed in NATO air strike (Al-Jazeera, 4.02)
☞ There's no business like war business (A.Times, 3.30)
While an increasing number of Syrians is taking the streets to demand democracy and social justice, the Palestinian "resistance" organisation Hamas declared its (surprise, surprise!!) solidarity with the 'ruling' dictatorship, i.e. Assad's state terror against the protest movement.
Yesterday's Palestine Information Center reported that "Hamas has said in a statement today that it stands by both the leadership of Syria, praising Syria's leadership and people for siding with the movement to resist the Israeli occupation throughout the years. 'The leadership and people of Syria have stood with the Palestinians' resistance movement and rights and embraced and supported the Palestinian resistance forces, especially Hamas, in the darkest and most difficult of times,' the statement reads."...
Related articles:
☞ Embrace Syrian revolution (Yedioth Ahronoth, 4.02)
☞ 'Assad announced himself a dictator' (Al-Jazeera, 3.31)
Last Sunday's Korea Times published the following piece, written by A. Lankov:
Libya and North Korea
So the military operation in Libya continues. Its eventual outcome is not quite clear, but the prognosis is not good for the regime in Tripoli. However, it is already clear that the developments in Libya are likely to influence the current situation on the Korean Peninsula, where tensions between the North and South have been remarkably high in the last few years.
It seems that in Korea the impact of the international intervention in Libya will produce results that at first glance might appear to be contradictory. In one regard it is likely to make the North Korean government more confrontational while in other ways will probably make it more cautious.
Kim Jong-il right now may feel very happy about his wisdom which he demonstrated by stubbornly rejecting denuclearization proposals. Colonel Gadhafi in 2003 did exactly what Kim said he would never do ― Gadhafi agreed to swap his nuclear weapons program for better relations with the West and economic rewards. As we see, it did not help the eccentric strongman. Once his subjects rose in rebellion, the West intervened and chose its military might to assist the rebels.
In private conversations, North Korean officials often say: ``Had Sadam had nukes he would still be in his palace right now.” From now on, they probably will add: ``And had Gadhafi not surrendered his nukes, nobody would have intervened when he was exterminating the rebels.”
But what is the likely overall impact of such thinking on the North Korean actions? If anything, it increases the already high probability of another nuclear test and/or missile launch. The preparations for such undertakings have been underway for some time. Now, North Korean leaders might believe that this is a good time to show off their steadily growing nuclear and missile capabilities. This is a way to send a message to the Obama administration, and the message will read like this: ``Mr. President, we are dangerous and its better not to get involved with us even if we do something which is not to your or anybody’s liking”.
At the same time, it’s now less likely that North Korea will attempt a major provocation aimed at South Korea. Until recently, one could be almost certain that in the near future (in April or May, perhaps), the North would repeat what they did with frigate Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island. Now they will probably think twice before making another attack.
While the attacks on Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island are usually described as ``provocations” this is essentially a misnomer. ``Provocation” describes an act whose goal is to elicit an irrational and/or excessive reaction from the target of the incident. It was clearly not the case with the Cheonan or Yeonpyeong attack. The North attacked under the assumption that the South would not react in a meaningful way and would be incapable of inflicting any serious damage on assets valuable to the North Korean leadership (the lives of rank-and-file soldiers do not belong to this category).
North Koreans are aware that currently the South Korean public and government are in an unusually bellicose mood. They therefore expect a massive retaliation to follow in the event of another attack. Until recently the North Korean leadership probably anticipated that the South Korean retaliation would be limited, since neither the South nor its major ally, the United States, would do anything which might lead to an escalation of an exchange of fire on the border to a full scale war.
Therefore from Pyongyang’s point of view, another military operation made perfect sense. It would be a good way to demonstrate that North Korea is not going to be quiet when ignored. They wanted to show that for Seoul and Washington, it’s essentially cheaper to pay some protection money to Pyongyang (in the shape of aid and concessions) than to deal with the ever-present possibility of a North Korean attack and related sense of tensions and instability.
However, the recent developments in Libya might have changed the equation ― for a while, at least. Libya shows that under certain circumstances the U.S. and its major allies may indeed choose to launch a large-scale military operation. The assumption that Seoul and Washington will avoid escalation seems still to be true, but Pyongyang may have started to have grave doubts about this.
So it is quite possible that the coming spring will be quieter than the present author (and many of his colleagues) have until recently expected. This does not mean that North Korea has turned into a pacifist state, but from the vantage point of Pyongyang it makes sense to postpone their operations against the South and wait for the dust to settle. And of course, by being quiet for a while they can save resources which will be needed to better prepare the next missile launch and next nuclear test.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/03/137_83934.html
Related articles:
☞ Foreign Ministry Spokesman Denounces US Military Attack on Libya (KCNA, 3.22)
☞ Libya's Lesson for North Korea (K. Times, 2008.9.11)
☞ Will North Korea Follow Libya's Lead? (FPIF, 2004.4.14)
The S. Korean PeaceNetwork published last week the following "analysis":
'A butterfly effect' of Libya and North Korea
“When the North collapses _ and one day it will, of course _ we’re going to face a problem that we’ve been spared in Libya. You have to bet that the (North Korean) leadership is going to threaten to use its weapons to stay in power. Even if they are bluffing, it’s going to change the entire strategy.”
This is a remark made by a high-ranking official of the Lee Myung-bak administration during an interview with the New York Times on March, 1. “While South Korea is dropping leaflets in North Korea alerting its population to the uprisings in the Middle East, senior South Korean officials acknowledged in interviews last week that should North Korea face a similar uprising, it could use the threat to unleash its arsenal _ which includes six to a dozen nuclear weapons by most estimates _ in an effort to keep neighboring countries from encouraging the government’s ouster” said the official on the condition of anonymity.
This analysis carries a significant implication about current and future situation of the Korean peninsula. Those who have been hawkish toward the North around the Lee Myung-bak administration seem to hope that “butterfly effect of Libya” spreads over North Korea, regarding “North Korea’s sudden change” such as, they classify, death of Kim Jong-il or a large-scale civil uprising as a great opportunity for “Absorbing Unification” (Unification through absorbing North Korea). In the same vein lies the reason why even military authorities and some members of the Grand National Party (the ruling party of the South) all are eager to distribute the leaflets. Moreover, Joint South Korea and the U.S. Military Exercise which began last 28th February is also focusing on making provision for this sudden change of the North.
As emerges this preparation for sudden change of the North in Seoul and Washington, an opposition of Pyongyang is also escalating. It reacted against the discourse by mentioning “a deluge of fire of Seoul” and “a nuclear disaster”. In particular, there increases the possibility that Pyongyang will cling to its nuclear as it faces the turmoil in Libya and Seoul and Washington’s preparation for North Korea’s sudden change. This is because the North Korean authorities, witnessing Qaddafi’s exposure to external military intervention especially by the U.S. and the U.K. after Qaddafi gave up nuclear weapons and missiles, will be convinced of its faith that “they need one decisive blow”.
A Libyan Model and North Korea
December, 2003, the Qaddafi’s administration, with arbitration of the U.K., signed up an agreement with the U.S. Under the terms of the agreement, Qaddafi contributed himself to abandoning weapons of massive destruction (WMD) and the U.S also has lifted economic sanctions and normalized relation with Libya. Believing that so called “Iraq Effect” (an effect that one must meet the U.S.’ attack if it does not voluntarily abandon WMD) brought Libya’s abandonment of WMD, the Bush administration was so encouraged by the agreement and insisted that North Korea and Iran need to follow the “Libyan Model”. However, North Korea and Iran, who were pointed as an axis of evil by Bush, interpreted this as a U.S.’ gesture for “regime change” and rather accelerated development of nuclear capabilities.
Now, the United States, who once referred to the Qaddafi’s administration as the epitome of non-proliferation, struggles to dethrone Qaddafi by all means available. Following economic sanctions such as freezing assets of family of Qaddafi’s, the U.S. is even considering military intervention including No-flight zone and forward deployment of Navy and Air force. While doing so, it sighed with relief given that it successfully had a deal to remove WMD with Qaddafi in 2003. Affirming that there is no question Qaddafi would have used whatever he felt necessary to stay in power including WMD had it failed to remove them, the U.S. believes that the worst nightmare possible had been prevented through the 2003 agreement.
At this point, we can figure out why the U.S. is so enthusiastic in hindering its adversary countries from possessing nuclear weapons and missiles. When the U.S. feels necessity of military intervention, the prime strategic consideration is whether or not the countries have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. On the other hand, it also explains why Pyongyang and Tehran, who are being first targeted even by the Obama administration, keep attempting to possess them.
Reinforcing this analysis, New York Times reported that “the message of the Libyan experience to other countries under pressure to give up their arsenals may not be the one Washington intends” and also reported that “Iran and North Korea, who have often been urged by the West to follow Libya’s example, may conclude that Colonel Qaddafi made a fatal error.” The “fatal error” in this context refers to Qaddafi’s abandonment of WMD.
Policy toward North Korea should not lose prime goal
As most North Korea experts pointed, there is very little likelihood that a large-scale civil uprising will occur in the North as did in the Middle East. Thus, being focused are sudden political changes such as death of Kim Jong-il and social unrest caused by consecutive power succession through three generations. However, a civil uprising for democratization and instability of regime are totally different. For international society, humanitarian interventions are relatively easy in the case of Libya where massive citizens rise for democracy under the threat of massacre by Qaddafi regime. However, should external military forces intervene due to potential political unrest caused by such a thing as death of Kim Jong-il, it is clearly violation of international law and able to trigger another disaster like a total war.
What is the most worrisome situation on the Korean peninsula is a meet of the two sides; first, conservative camps of South Korea and the U.S. which seem to regard democracy wave in the Middle East as an opportunity to overthrow “Dictator Kim Jong-il regime” and second, “Nuclear Deification” of North Korean leaderships wishing to dispel the suspicion and to prevent external military intervention by reinforcing “nuclear deterrent.” When these two movements converges, forming vicious circle, chances are there will be decadence of South Korean democracy and increased probability of the second Korean War, not a democratization of the North or Absorbing Unification.
In short, what is significant at this point is to clear up the principal goals in North Korean policies which have been missing since the Lee Myung-Bak administration. Prevention of Korean War is the priority of the priorities. Thus, not only deterrence of Pyongyang’s provocation but also restraint of behaviors provoking Pyongyang are now necessity. Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula also became more important. In order to achieve this denuclearization, required is not a unilateral nuclear abandonment of the North, but corresponding measures such as lifting economic sanctions and building peace system. In addition, what is also needed for stabilization of the peninsula is a special effort for restoration of the relationship of the two Koreas.
It is obvious that these principal goals in policies toward North Korea are incompatible with the current effort to trigger sudden change of the North. Therefore, the Lee Myung-bak administration’s idle and incompetent North Korean policies assuming that “the North will collapse someday” and doing nothing other than promoting the collapse need to be changed urgently.
http://peacekorea.org/zbxe/77572#0
The S. Korean 'left' is - once again - trying to combine their forces to fight back the conservatives' advance and the planned foundation of a so-called "New Popular Progressive Party"(새진보정당) is the latest whack to create a unified organisation...
Yesterday's Hankyoreh reported about the actual state of affairs:
NPP-DLP merger thwarted by independence wing
Though NPP members remain divided, labor union and civic organization members have urged the parties to merge
The brakes have been thrown on the movement toward a progressive political party merger. At a New Progressive Party (NPP) regular party convention at the National Assembly Visitor Center on Mar. 27, delegates passed a “2011 motion to modify the comprehensive plan of action” submitted by an independent wing that is against a merger with the Democratic Labor Party (DLP).
The passed revision includes two important clauses. One states, “The New Progressive Party opposes North Korea’s nuclear development and dynastic succession,” which was changed from the sentence that reads, “The New Progressive Party adheres to its critical view of North Korea’s nuclear development and dynastic succession.” The other clause was, “To build a progressive political party with factions in agreement if the new progressive political party is not formed until Sept. 2011.”
The two clauses are expected to be difficult for the DLP to accept. As a result, observers said the convention was a complete victory by the independent wing in response to the proposed merger. The independent wing seemed to prevail, having a 6 to 4 ratio of support.
There has been a fierce war of nerves waged within the New Progressive Party between the independence and merger wings as well as neutralists regarding the merger discussions. At last month’s national committee meeting, the independence wing made up 45 percent of the party, 35 percent were in favor of merging with the DLP, and 20 percent were neutral. There were also complex signs of conflict within the merger wing between those who favor a grand merger involving the People’s Participation Party (PPP) and parts of the Democratic Party, and those who favor a smaller merger involving just the DLP and the Socialist Party. Some are calling for a merger with the Socialist Party to pursue an independent line if the merger with the DLP does not work out.
Of the current and former party leaders, former NPP Chairwoman Shim Sang-jung supports a grand merger with the People’s Participation Party, while Cho and former Chairman Roh Hoe-chan reportedly support a smaller merger. Roh is a likely candidate to chair the party committee to push the merger.
The move was also considered a major blow to the New Progressive Party (NPP) leadership, who have become supportive of a merger as rising pressure from labor groups and civic society has also urged the two parties to merge.
NPP leader Cho Seung-soo, who has been considered part of the “independent party” wing, said in a letter sent before the convention, “The NPP has failed to reconstitute progressivism, the idea advocated when the party was founded.” Calling for active efforts to unify with the DLP, Cho said, “If the discussion regarding the founding of a new progressive political party cannot be brought to a conclusion now, there is a high possibility that the NPP could find itself caught in a state of severe powerlessness.”
Cho reportedly confirmed a consensus for merging during a recent closed-door meeting with DLP Chairwoman Lee Jung-hee. Deputy Chair Yoon Nan-sil, who was also counted with the “independent party” wing, has also changed position and is accelerating her pro-merger political activities.
A variable is external political movements, however. “Civic Society for the Welfare State and a Broad Progressive Merger,” made up of figures from civic organizations and academia, and recently even labor figures have been making louder calls for merger. Five former heads of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), including Kwon Yong-kil, Dan Byung-ho, Lee Su-ho, Cho Jun-ho and Lim Sung-kyu released a statement on Mar. 21 saying there was a need for a unified term that would make clear the goal of building a new progressive political party that seeks quantitative and qualitative progress, rather than the term “grand progressive merger,” which highlights only the quantitative increase. The former union heads said they would work to build a new progressive party. Within the KCTU, individual trade unions are reportedly preparing a declaration seeking membership as preliminary members of the new progressive political party.
In order to remove barriers to a merger, the DLP has also displayed some humility. One such example was the way in which the DLP leadership, including Chairwoman Lee, Supreme Council member Kim Sung-jin and Ulsan chapter branch head Kim Chang-hyeon, reflected openly through official party meetings and debate statements upon hegemony within the party, the past reason for the division of the party.
Kim said at a debate put on by the DLP’s New Community Institute, “I regretfully acknowledge that monopolization of party power through collusion was a fundamental reason for the split.”
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/470239.html
Related articles:
☞ New Progressives Add to NK Criticisms (DailyNK, 3.28)
☞ 새진보정당 연석회의, 6월말까지 구체 합의 이루기로 (NewsCham, 3.29)
최근 덧글 목록