21st Century Vision

Justice at last?

While governments increasingly assume that, once elected, they can do absolutely anything they like, it is good to know that the bastion of the law is still there to protect us little people against them. It can take a while, though.

The Chagos Islanders have been fighting the British government through the courts for decades, and they have just won another victory. It remains unclear whether this will do them any good, as they have had their rights upheld by the courts before, only for the government to ignore the ruling.

You may not recognise the name of the Chagos Islands, but you will probably recognise the name Diego Garcia. It's the American airbase in the Indian Ocean, leased from the UK in extremely murky circumstances in 1966, and it is one of the Chagos Islands, the main one. In order to effect the lease, the Wilson government had to separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius, of which they were until then a part - else they would have had to be given up when Mauritius got its independence in 1968. That meant a whole new colony of "British Indian Ocean Territory" came into being, in direct contravention of UN Declaration 1514 (1960), and also of Resolution 2066 of 1965 which specifically prohibited the dismemberment of Mauritius.

The islanders were then summarily and forcibly removed, without warning or consultation, and dumped on Mauritius. The British government simply pretended there had never been any Chagossians, or that if there had they were just passing through. They were abandoned on an already overcrowded island with high unemployment, where they did not speak the local language. Most were poorly educated, and few got jobs.

In 1973 (6 years later) the British government came up with £650,000 'aid' for the 2000 Chagossians, and in 1982 another £4 million - but that was on condition that the Chagossians accepted it as a full and final settlement and signed away their rights ever to return to their homeland. That seems to have been the trigger that started the fightback, as in 1983 the Chagos Refugee Group was formed and started legal proceedings.

In November 2000 they got their first victory when the High Court ruled that the expulsion of the islanders had been illegal. There was still the matter of the US airbase though, and the US and UK each maintained that the return of the Chagossians was the other's responsibility. A Foreign Office study concluded that their return would be "difficult, precarious and costly", but a resettlement expert called the conclusions "erroneous in every assertion". The government then proceeded to pull a seriously fast one: an Order in Council banning anyone from setting foot in the Chagos Islands. This was promulgated without any prior warning on local election day, 2004 - a good day to bury bad news.

The Order in Council was overturned by the High Court in May 2006, but the government did noy give up - they appealed. Yesterday the Appeal Court ruled once again in the islanders' favour.

The Foreign Secretary will now decide whether to take the case to the House of Lords. Margaret Beckett is one of the more sensible members of the Blair Cabinet, so there is some hope that she will not. This thoroughly unsavoury bullying of an innocent and defenceless people has gone on far too long and brought huge discredit on the UK. It is high time for the government to admit that it has been wrong for 40 years and apologise to the Chagossians for the appalling treatment they have had. This country used to pride itself on its fairness. Fairness? What a joke.

For the UK Chagos Support Association's website click here.

Iraq: the refugees

This blog frequently deals with the Iraq war and sometimes with refugee issues. What about putting the two together?

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees currently estimates that there are some 1.9 million Iraqis displaced internally and up to 2 million in neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced before 2003 but an increasing number are fleeing now. Egypt hosts an estimated Iraqi population of more than 100,000 and in 2006 Iraqis became the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe.

UNHCR initially assumed in the years following the overthrow of Saddam that the domestic situation would stabilise and hundreds of thousands of previously displaced Iraqis would be able to go home. Between 2003 and 2005 some 300,000 Iraqis did indeed return home, including from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan and other countries. In 2006, however, spiralling violence led to increasing displacement, necessitating a reassessment of UNHCR's work and priorities throughout the region. The returns have stopped and many more people are fleeing, including large numbers of skilled professionals crucial to Iraq's recovery.

This is not surprising when we add the evidence from Iraq Body Count, the agency which tracks fatalities based on cross-checked media reports. It says that on every available indicator the period March 2006-March 2007 "has been by far the worst year for violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion: almost half (44%) of all violent civilian deaths after the initial invasion phase occurred in the just-ended fourth year of the conflict".

In this situation, and taking into account our role in initiating the war, of course we in the UK are doing our bit on the refugee front. Aren't we? According to the Guardian (17th April), "Britain approves just 12% of Iraqi asylum claims, compared with a 91% approval rate in Sweden, which has suspended forcible refugee returns".

Meanwhile Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Refugee Council recently wrote jointly to the British government saying -

"We believe that because of the UK's involvement in the Iraq conflict, the UK should be playing a leading role in addressing the humanitarian crisis"

And they went on the urge Mr Blair to adopt "a more generous, more principled, more coherent and more far-sighted set of UK policies".

Click here for UNHCR on the Iraq refugee crisis

Can't stay, can't go, can't work, can't live

In this blog we have occasionally raised aspects of the UK's asylum and refugee regime, including the detention of children ("The Real Scandal at the Home Office", 22nd May 2006) and the deliberate destitution of refused asylum seekers as an instrument of policy ("Just.Fair", 20th February 2007). Two weeks ago we carried the response of the Refugee Council to the publication by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights of "The Treatment of Asylum Seekers" ("No Place in a Humane Society", 9th April 2007). Having now read the report for ourselves we want not only to endorse the Refugee Council's comments but to provide readers with one or two illustrative extracts - and to urge as many as possible to delve into the document at the link below. If a test of the civilized principles practised - and not merely proclaimed - by a society is the way it treats those seeking refuge, the Joint Committee's report makes sobering reading.

§ 98 If the Home Office decides to refuse or withdraw asylum support, claimants have a right of appeal to the Asylum Support Adjudicators, a tribunal based in Croydon. There is no legal aid available for representation at such tribunals, although the prospects of success are higher for represented appellants, and asylum seekers often find it difficult to obtain advice about the appeal process. Individuals have no right to accommodation or support whilst awaiting the appeal hearing and so may be without any support for the week or so before the hearing. Although travel expenses can be claimed, it is difficult for homeless asylum seekers who speak no English to attend a tribunal where they will be unrepresented

§ 107 The Home Office stated that section 4 support [basic (often sub-basic) accommodation plus weekly vouchers worth £35] was intended as "a limited and temporary form of support" for people who were expected to leave the UK as soon as they were able to do so. However, witnesses have said that in practice, many people were now surviving on this temporary benefit for far longer than was originally envisaged. For example, Citizens Advice estimated that the average length of time on section 4 support was nine months. Reliance on section 4 support for the medium to long term, where the asylum seeker is unable to return home through no fault of their own, results in a number of potential human rights violations, particularly where the household includes a child

§ 140 In the experience of [Médecins du Monde], many pregnant women are very frightened following their discussions with hospital Overseas Payment Officers to the extent that some are deterred from seeking any further care. Many are unaware that they could access emergency care in A&E Departments free of charge. MDM states that is has "seen letters sent by hospitals which failed to inform the women about their rights under the current regulations. In each case, the letters explained that the women will be charged and needs to pay the maternity package in advance in order to access any care without informing the woman that she would not be denied care if she could not pay in advance". MDM suggested that the "inconsistent and aggressive application of charging to pregnant women, in direct contravention of government policy, presents a serious threat to the lives of these women and their babies"

To penetrate deeper into the nightmare world of British asylum policy, click here

"No Place in a Humane Society"

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, with cross-party membership from Commons and Lords, published its report on the Treatment of Asylum Seekers on 30th March. The following comment comes from Anna Reisenberger, acting Chief Executive of the Refugee Council -

This report is a devastating indictment of the government’s asylum policy. It criticises almost every aspect of the asylum system suggesting that in numerous areas, international obligations are being breached and asylum seekers are being denied their basic human rights.

The list of policies that the report criticises is extraordinary:

• the system of asylum support, which it describes as a “confusing mess”
• destitution among asylum seekers, which it describes as “a deliberate tool” and “unacceptable”
• the refusal to allow asylum seekers to work, which it says in many cases amounts to treatment that is “inhuman and degrading”
• the use of vouchers, which it describes as “inhumane and inefficient”
• the Section 9 policy [withdrawal of support from families with dependent children], which it says “has no place in a humane society”
• the lack of legal representation, which it says denies many people the right to a fair hearing
• the standard of some accommodation for asylum seekers, which it says is “inadequate” and again could be breaching human rights
• the denial of access to health care, which it says is unjustifiable and is “extremely shocking” in many cases
• the general treatment of asylum seeker children, which it says leaves these children with a “lower level of protection” than other children in the UK
• the detention of vulnerable people, such as torture victims, which it says is “clearly a violation of the UK’s human rights obligations”
• the detention of children, which it says “is incompatible with children’s right to liberty"

And she adds, "We particularly welcome the calls for asylum seekers to be allowed to work or to be given decent levels of support as long as they remain in the UK. We also welcome the recommendation that asylum seekers, at all stages of the process, should get access to free health treatment, that vouchers should be scrapped and that detention of vulnerable people – and in particular children – should be subject to much higher standards.”

Enfield and the Barnets United Nations Association - together with the Social Policy Research Centre at Middlesex University - is holding an open meeting on "Migration, Asylum and Human Rights" on Thursday 26th April (5.30-7.30pm at the university's Queensway site, room P8 Pascal Building). Among the speakers are Don Flynn, from the Migrant Rights Network (formerly JCWI), and Joan Ryan, Enfield North MP and also Under-Secretary for Immigration at the Home Office

Click here for the Joint Committee on Human Rights Report

Closing of ranks leaves a rank smell

Last week we saw a blatant perversion of justice, when a court acquitted all the defendants in the case arising from the death in custody in Basra of Baha Mousa. It wasn't the court's fault - the presiding judge, Mr Justice McKinnon, found that the Iraqi's injuries were sustained "as a result of numerous assaults over 36 hours by unidentified persons", but that there had been a cover-up. "None of those soldiers has been charged with any offence, simply because there is no evidence against them as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks". The court transcript shows more than 600 instances of soldiers "unable to remember" details.

The case, lest you have forgotten, arises from a raid by Britsh soldiers on a hotel in Basra on 14th September 2003. Baha Mousa was the receptionist. He and other staff members were taken to a military base where, over the next few days, they were systematically beaten by members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. One of the other detainees later gave this account: "We were put in a big room with our hands tied and with bags over our heads. But I could see through some holes in my hood. Soldiers would come in, ordinary soldiers, not officers - mostly with their heads shaved but in uniform - and they would kick us, picking on one after the other. They were kick-boxing us in the chest and between the legs and in the back. We were crying and screaming. They set on Baha especially and he kept crying that he couldn't breathe in the hood. He kept asking them to take the bag off and said he was suffocating. But they laughed at him and kicked him more. One of them said 'stop screaming and you will be able to breathe more easily'. Baha was so scared. Then they increased the kicking on him and he collapsed on the floor. None of us could stand or sit because it was too painful".

As a result of this treatment, Baha Mousa died. His corpse was subsequently found to have 93 separate injuries. A sickening case, and one which should have had the British public, once informed of the facts, baying for justice.

Bay they did - but at the "injustice" of daring to try our brave soldiers for such a piddling offence. Senior ex-army types were wheeled out on the TV news to express their horror at the "waste of taxpayers money" on a trial. The tabloids were on the same wavelength.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independent put her finger on the problem: naked, out-and-out racism. She quotes a 'senior army bigwig' telling her that it was "important not to apply our sensibilities to the Arab world. They don't suffer our gloom over death. It's a step to paradise or just a common hazard". There you have it in a nutshell: they are lesser beings, whose sufferings don't amount to a row of beans. How ironic that this should be the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade.

Cultural genocide

Continuing our occasional series on conflicts the world has forgotten we turn to Tibet. Maybe this is stretching things a little, as the gentle and statesmanlike Dalai Lama and the Free Tibet Campaign manage to keep the public at least minimally informed, but still it does not exactly rate highly on the political agenda. 'Conflict' is also a bit of a misnomer since, as with our earlier pieces on Western Sahara and West Papua, the conflict is entirely one-sided. The deeply-religious Buddhist Tibetans don't even try to fight back, except for a desperate uprising in 1959 and since then with civil disobedience, which they practice with exemplary courage.

The Chinese invaded Tibet in 1950, without the shadow of an excuse beyond the need (?) to bring communism to as much of the world as they could. Populated largely with monks and herdsmen Tibet was a pushover. Mao promised the Tibetans that the Chinese would leave once 'liberation' was completed ('Liberation' from what was never explained - there were no capitalists in Tibet). The promise of course was not kept, leading to that abortive uprising in 1959, in which an estimated 430,000 Tibetans were killed (the Chinese said 87,000). 100,000 more, including the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and (until 1950) temporal leader of Tibet, fled into exile in India. A further 340,000 died in the next few years as the economy, destabilised by the Chinese, collapsed and famines (previously unknown) hit the country.

The cultural revolution, also known euphemistically as the 'Great Leap Forward', did not spare Tibet. Thousands of monasteries were destroyed and tens of thousands of Tibetans ended up in Labour camps. The assault on Tibetan culture had begun, and continues unabated to this day, even though the political climate in China now is very different to what it was under Mao. Although destruction of monasteries has ceased - there are not very many left - persecution of monks and a general suppression of the Buddhist religion continues, particularly as monks and nuns tend to be the ones who most often perform acts of defiance. Their reward is usually a long prison sentence and brutal 're-education' amounting to endemic torture.

In 1995 the Panchen Lama, the second most holy man in the Tibetan Buddhist establishment, died. The child named by monks as his re-incarnation, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, disappeared together with his whole family and has never been seen again. The Chinese authorities declared another boy to be the Panchen Lama, and have kept him isolated ever since so he could be suitably brainwashed.

There has been a steady, officially encouraged influx of Han Chinese into the country, to the point where native Tibetans are now outnumbered in their own land. Chinese has replaced Tibetan as the official language.

Through all this the Tibetan people cling stubbornly to their traditions and beliefs. They refuse to let their culture die, although it gets harder all the time. The repression does not let up. The total death toll since 1950 is now estimated at 1.2 million. Just last November, a group of 40 or so Tibetans attempting to flee through the Nangpa La Pass to Nepal were fired on in full sight of climbers at the Everest Base Camp. At least two were killed, and the rest rounded up and (according to the testimony of one who subsequently made a successful escape) beaten and tortured over several days. Video footage of the shooting has circled the world to the embarrassment of the Chinese, so at least the deaths were not completely in vain.

There will be a march organised by the Free Tibet Campaign on Saturday March 10th, commemorating the 1959 uprising - see their website for details.

Just.Fair

How do you make the invisible glaringly obvious? Last night one method was put into highly effective practice by the Refugee Council in a "sleepout" in Parliament Square. "Asylum destitution? Can't see it, doesn't exist." False logic supports poor policy.

The government doesn't count the number of refused asylum seekers in the UK, but the Refugee Council thinks the best estimate is "tens of thousands". These are people whose applications have been refused and yet who cannot return to their country of origin because of fear of reprisals or because the original threat which led them to leave still exists. Almost everything about the popular media-fed image of people in this position is false. What proves it is the fact that to remain in this country they must endure social conditions not seen in Britain since before the Victorian poor law.

Destitution among refused asylum seekers is widespread and is having a devastating impact on already vulnerable individuals. The evidence for this is so strong that it must be regarded as beyond dispute. Quite apart from homelessness and lack of access to some NHS services, there is also strong evidence that desitution among asylum seekers is forcing people into dangerous and exploitative situations in order to survive.

The Refugee Council points out that "asylum seeker destitution is not a policy failure of the Home Office, it is a policy outcome".

In this situation refused asylum seekers are being supported around the country by friends, their communities, local groups, churches and charities. Last night - under the slogan Just.Fair - many from all these groups made the point by sleeping rough in Parliament Square, just across the road from a House of Commons which has moral responsibility for using destitution as a weapon to drive desperate people back into the threatening situations from which they have fled.

The photographs show students, campaigners and asylum seekers themselves from London, the North and the West united in resistance to the inhumanity of government policy. Some MPs and peers lent at least some support - the MP for Enfield Southgate emailed one sleeper that he felt "there should at least be scope for allowing asylum seekers to work in types of employment or be paid for community work when the application for asylum is delayed through no fault of the asylum seeker" - and many cars and lorries hooted encouragement as they swirled around the square.

As for the sleepers, they learnt if they did not already know what it is to spend the night on a pavement. Of course most would be going home to a comfortable bed and maybe a hot bath, not to an indeterminate prospect of rough sleeping or a shake down on a friend's floor. Last night there was only a light drizzle in Parliament Square but, even with the mildly soporific tones of Big Ben to keep them company, not many slept for more than a few fitful hours. Add life on the margins to the trauma of exile: an uncomfortable equation.

Contact the Refugee Council

Human Rights 2007

The following is an extract from the Human Rights Watch World Report for 2007, a bleak survey of the state of human rights worldwide today, and the prospects for enhancing respect for them

What government is today’s champion of human rights? Washington’s potentially powerful voice no longer resonates after the US government’s use of detention without trial and interrogation by torture. The administration of President George W. Bush can still promote “democracy”—the word it uses to avoid raising the thorny subject of human rights—but it cannot credibly advocate rights that it flouts.

As America’s influence wanes, China’s waxes. Yet China is hardly a leader on human rights. Its growing economic power has enhanced its global influence, but it remains at best indifferent to the human rights practices of others. Unwilling to permit political pluralism or the rule of law at home, Beijing pretends that human rights are an internal affair when dealing with others abroad.

Russia, with its internal crackdown on independent voices and its dirty war in Chechnya, is going down the same perverse path. Its goal seems to be rebuilding a sphere of influence, especially among the nations of the former Soviet Union, even if that means embracing tyrants and murderers. Attempting to deflect criticism, President Vladimir Putin went so far as to dismiss human rights as “artificial ‘standards.’”

In this bleak environment, the European Union and the world’s emerging democracies could provide potential sources of human rights leadership. Each has made important contributions, but none is performing with the consistency or effectiveness needed to fill the leadership void.

With Washington’s voice diminished, the European Union today should be the strongest and most effective defender of human rights. It is founded on human rights principles and aspires to greatness in global affairs. But as the EU grapples with its enlarged membership, it is punching well below its weight. Its effort to achieve consensus among its diverse members has become so laborious that it yields a faint shadow of its potential. Union was supposed to enhance Europe’s influence. Instead, when it comes to promoting human rights, the whole has been less than the sum of its parts.

The democracies of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, some long established but many new and insecure, have begun to stand up for human rights in certain international dealings. Despite moments of promise, however, these governments have yet to cooperate across regional boundaries to find an effective common voice. Too often, they show greater allegiance to their regional blocs than to their human rights ideals, greater solidarity with neighbouring dictators than with the people whose rights they have pledged to uphold. This tendency played a particularly pernicious role in the United Nations’ new Human Rights Council, which, far from improving on the discredited Commission on Human Rights, is threatening to repeat its disappointing ways, damaging the credibility of the entire UN system.

Click here to read the Human Rights Watch 2007 World Report in full

A global focus on Burma

Enfield and the Barnets UNA offers the opportunity to its partners within the Enfield Civil Society Forum to post entries on this blog. The entry below is posted by Enfield, Barnet and Palmers Green branch of Amnesty International.

Anyone who has not accidentally stumbled upon this site will already know a little bit about the poverty-stricken, dictatorial hell-hole that is Burma (or the "Union of Myanmar" as its ruling generals would prefer it to be called). So I will not bang on about how terrible the place is. There are some links at the end of this blog that can get you up to speed. Suffice to say that it has amongst the worst public health indicators in the world, and if you decide to go there and sing a pro-democracy song in the street, you should be prepared for 14 years, or longer in prison.

What I want to talk about instead is what can we do to help the Burmese people. Our local Amnesty Group is proposing a global day of action on 08/08/08. Now, I realise it may seem a little odd to be planning so far ahead, but remember, this is a global thing and will take some organising. And a benefit of a long build-up is that it gives a chance for pressure to grow as the date approaches.

So why 08/08/08? In the 1980s, increasing poverty and repression led to a growing democracy movement in Burma. This came to a head in the huge student demonstrations, famously held on 8th August 1988 (8/8/88). Thousands of peaceful demonstrators were slaughtered by the armed forces. (Members of our group were recently privileged to attend a meeting of the Islington AI group, where we met and heard the powerful, moving testimony of Ko Aung - an eye-witness to the massacres.) After the killing, the ruling Junta called elections, convinced it would win. It lost heavily, despite its scare tactics. However, it ignored the election results and increased its repression. The elected leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been under house arrest for most of the intervening years, with little practical help from the outside world.

So, 08/08/08 will be the 20th anniversary of the famous pro-democracy demonstrations. It seems like this date is a possibly unique opportunity to bring the world-wide multitude of pro-democracy Burma groups together in joint action. And if it's clear a long time in advance that there are going to be large-scale protests and demonstrations, not just against the Burmese generals but against our own elected leaders' ineffectual policies and against corporate collusion in Burma's massive Human Rights abuses, then whatever the outcome, at very least the Burmese people may gain some hope and courage from our show of solidarity.

So, with this in mind, our Amnesty group (Enfield, Barnet and Palmers Green) are proposing that Amnesty take a lead in bringing together groups across the country and across the world in a joint protest in time for 08/08/08. Our motion suggesting this action goes to Amnesty UK AGM in March, and if passed, hopefully on to the global Amnesty movement. (If you're a UK Amnesty member or group member you can attend the AGM and vote for the motion.)

Burma campaign groups sometimes differ in their opinions about how best to help the Burmese people. To engage economically, or to impose sanctions? Tourism or boycott? Reform the regime or overthrow it? Whatever the differences in these positions, all such groups have essentially the same long-term aim: peaceful democracy in Burma. Natural attention-focusing opportunities such as 08/08/08 come around very rarely. At such a time it is essential that all groups concerned with democracy in Burma express the common ground they share.

We cannot rely on our leaders to do this for us. It took till December 2005 for the UN Security Council to even get around to discussing Burma. Last month China and Russia vetoed the long-awaited Security Council resolution recommending tougher action on Burma, with South Africa also voting against. Self-interest is often more important to the leaders of the international community than promoting democracy. It's up to the real  International Community, us, to bring about change.

Democracy may not dawn in Burma on 08/08/08, but we can all do our bit to bring that day a bit closer. We can do it by taking part in something much bigger than ourselves - a global coming-together of like-minded souls, who refuse simply to wallow in our own good fortune, but choose to use some of our liberty to promote others'.

Whether it's letters to MPs and leaders, supporting Burmese aid groups, street protests, sending our support to Aung San Suu Kyi, calling for tougher UN action, lobbying companies, writing to the press - we can do something to bring nearer the change that so many died for on 8/8/88.

Glenn Bassett
Chair, Enfield, Barnet and Palmers Green AI group

Some resources -

AI 2006 report: http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/mmr-summary-eng
Burma Campaign UK: www.burmacampaign.org.uk
Charitable organisations: www.freesuukyi.org
Information and short video: www.witness.org
Brief history of Burma: http://www.burmaissues.org/En/facts.html
New Internationalist special Burma issue: (1996) http://www.newint.org/issue280/
New Statesman special issue article on Burma (August 2006) http://www.newstatesman.com/nslibrary?qs=Burma

Free West Papua!

A few weeks ago we started an occasional series highlighting the conflicts the world has forgotten about - or never heard of in the first place. In the current instance I suspect it's the latter. Certainly I had never heard of it until a recent demo on behalf of the Free West Papua campaign was brought to my attention. I went along. It was a very small demo, but characterised by much singing. It was all in Papuan, so I had no idea what the words meant, but the songs all sounded cheerful, a celebration of life - despite the fearful atrocities which the handouts described having been visited upon the unfortunate West Papuans by the Indonesian government, outside whose embassy we were demonstrating.

West Papua is, as you might expect, the western half of the island of New Guinea, the east of which is occupied by Papua New Guinea. It used to be a Dutch colony, and remained so when Indonesia won its independence. West Papua was also slated for independence, and in 1961 held a congress which declared independence. The Dutch prepared to leave - but then the Indonesians invaded. A 3-way conflict between the Dutch the Indonesians and the native inhabitants resulted. The US - fearful that a full-scale war between the Dutch and the Indonesians would send the latter into the communist camp - intervened and brokered an agreement giving control to the UN for a year, followed by a handover to Indonesia. The Papuans were not consulted, but were promised the right to self-determination.

There is no justification save force of arms for an Indonesian claim on West Papua, and the inhabitants have resisted the invaders ever since. They got their 'right to self-determination' in 1969, but it was a sham: rather than a plebiscite, the vote was given to 1026 'representative' Papuans - out of a population  of a million - hand-picked by the Indonesians and forced by threats to vote the right way. All 1026 did; you can always tell a vote is rigged when the majority is this big. This was called 'The Act of Free Choice' - or, for the Papuans, 'the Act of No Choice'. Shamefully, the UN accepted this blatant hypocrisy.

If it were just that the West Papuans had had their land stolen from them they would hardly rate a mention even on this blog. The necessary corollary of the theft has been repeated atrocities by the Indonesian authorities in a so far unsuccessful attempt to stamp out resistance to their rule. Systematic murder, rape and torture have been the order of the day. Anyone raising the Morning Star flag or speaking out for independence is imprisoned. Thousands of people were displaced to make way for a goldmine - the largest in the world (and British- and American-owned) - which has totally destroyed a mountain sacred to the locals, and poisoned the rivers. A million of Indonesia's poor have been moved from overcrowded shanty towns to 'transmigration camps' in West Papua in a blatant attempt to swamp the native culture.  Villages have been burned.

Given that history, the demonstrators I joined in early December had every right to be fuelled by hate. They certainly have no love for the Indonesians, but I still recall those songs, celebrating life and their nation rather than spitting with the bitterness of the oppressed. The West Papuans deserve their country back

See the Free West Papua website, or read Hansard's report of a recent debate on West Papua in the House of Lords.