theglobaljournal.net: Latest articles of Thor Halvorssen

A Tyrannical Victory at the Human Rights Council?

2012-11-13T10:12:13Z

It is a good day for intolerant rulers like Hugo Chavez and Nursultan Nazarbayev, as seven countries with particularly appalling human rights records were elected to the UN Human Rights Council: Ethiopia, Gabon, Côte d’Ivoire, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

The Human Rights Council was founded in 2006 in response to the censure that the UN Human Rights Commission was facing for including major human rights violators in its ranks. For decades, the Commission was actively destructive to the interests of human rights by providing diplomatic cover to the worst tyrants. The success of human rights-abusing governments in using seats on the Commission to deflect pressure for reform became one of the most cynical games in international politics.

At the time, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted that the Commission's “declining credibility” had “cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system. Unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself.” His advice, that the Commission be “scrapped and replaced,” was heeded. The new council was to be different; it would only elect countries that “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” It was to right the wrongs of the defunct Commission. Unfortunately, today's elections seem to indicate total failure. The Council is the same old wine in a new bottle. Take three of the countries that were elected to the council with questionable human rights records: Venezuela, Kazakhstan and Pakistan.

The Venezuelan government has continually engaged in human rights violations. Arrests, incarceration, and criminal prosecution of individuals who express opinions opposing the state are rampant. Press freedom is under assault, and the regime holds a communications hegemony. Legislation by the state has criminalized legitimate criticism of public officials, disregarding the principles of accountability, transparency and honest government. What's more, the Venezuelan government has consistently ignored various international recommendations from UN member states. For instance, recommendations from Norway, Switzerland, the UK and Czech Republic to improve Venezuela's hellish prison conditions have been denied. Venezuela has failed to uphold international obligations on freedom of speech, and has yet to respect a single decision of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which has determined in numerous cases that Venezuela's political prisoners should be freed.

Equally problematic is Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's repeated endorsements of some of the world's top human rights violators: Vladimir Putin of Russia, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The Venezuelan strongman has described these men as his “brothers.” It is doubtful that Venezuela can objectively address the human rights violations of leaders considered allies, and friends and from whom Chavez purchases billions of dollars in arms or shares totalitarian best practices. Things will only become worse with Venezuela, a country with neither rule of law nor freedom of speech, and with a track record of ignoring the international decisions of the Council.

Kazakhstan is another country with a litany of human rights abuses on its government's record. The regime controls public assembly, and the denial of permits for any politically motivated public meeting is common. Authorities will often use lethal force to break up peaceful strikes and protests. The Zhanaozen massacre that occurred in December was a bloodbath that is yet to be properly investigated. Kazakh media are subject to censorship and legal restrictions, and those with dissenting opinions have been met with harassment, libel and defamation charges, and physical attacks. If this isn't enough to prove the government's media chokehold, consider that the main media broadcast company is owned by state agents and associates of the president's family. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, President Nazarbayev's authoritarian rule is likely to continue; national elections are laughably fraudulent with the president-for-life winning more than 95 percent of the vote. Nazarbayev has stated that a one-party parliament was a “wonderful opportunity to adopt all the laws needed to speed up our country's economic and political modernization.” The election of Kazakhstan to the Council will provide the country with the means to silence not just domestic, but also international criticism of Kazakh human rights violations.

Pakistan similarly fails to meet the minimal standards of a free democracy. Criticism of the government in the press is limited by the state, Internet censorship has increased, and the government restricts the registration of NGOs. Reporters Without Borders has declared Pakistan “the world's deadliest country for journalists for the second year running,” ranking the country 151st out of 179 countries in its 2011-2012 Press Freedom Index. Insulting Islam, the prophet Mohammed, or the Koran is punishable by death, and many, like Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, remain on death row for the crime of blasphemy. Some Pakistanis believe their government is complicit in the culture of intolerance and violence that allowed 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai to be shot in the head by the Taliban for advocating education for herself and other girls. Pakistan's UN voting record is also worth examining. Pakistan has abstained from voting on the resolution for victims in North Korea, Myanmar and Syria and outright opposed the resolution for victims in Iran. What else can we expect from Pakistan being on the Council?

The Council, which was supposed to be an improved replacement of the defunct Commission, is plagued by the same faults as its autocratic member governments. I learned this first hand when I testified in Geneva earlier this year and was shut down by the servants of the Chinese, Cuban, and Russian dictatorships. The US, which just won re-election to the Council, is not free of criticism on the grounds of human rights violations. However, its government protects the right to freedom of speech and assembly, separation of powers exists, and a free press holds the government in check. Most importantly, it has a demonstrable track record inside the Council of addressing its own human rights violations while being an honest ally of witnesses who come to testify.

The Council pledged to subject member countries to an entirely new and universal periodic peer review “based on objective and reliable information” of their human rights records during their terms. Yet, tyrannies like China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia continue to enjoy member status. And other candidates not remotely qualified for membership are winning new seats, despite our best opposition. The Council must not continue to act as a criticism shield for governments that fail to uphold the very standards it espouses.

The Human Rights Council has become perhaps the most effective tool for dictators to divert attention away from their own abuses. We must ask, with some of the world's most egregious rights violators newly elected, exactly how much credibility does the Council have left?

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

(Photo © UN)

Russia's Pussy Riot Guilty Verdict Unmasks Putin's Dictatorship

2012-08-20T10:46:56Z

A fiction writer from the Golden Age of Russian literature could never have dreamed up a scenario as absurd and a story as far-fetched as the persecution of the punk rock band Pussy Riot, found guilty on Friday (17 August) by a Russian court and sentenced to two years in prison.

As if this theater of the absurd wasn't enough, the Putin government raised the stakes when, outside the courthouse this morning, police beat and arrested Russian democracy activist (and HRF chairman) Garry Kasparov. He was freed hours later and is now under investigation for “biting” a police officer.

Those of us who attempt to keep human rights in the forefront of culture and of the public conversation can seldom find a greater gift than this perfect story. In this instance, it reveals the tyrannical nature of Vladimir Putin's neo-czarist regime.

Pussy Riot is a feminist punk rock group made up of 10 women who wear brightly colored balaclavas, tights, and short skirts. The group was formed in 2011 in response to then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's decision to run for president in his ongoing bid to remain de facto leader of Russia. The band campaigns for individual rights, democracy, and reform of the Russian justice system.

On Feb. 21, 2012, Pussy Riot performed a “punk prayer” in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. Their prayer involved a song asking the Virgin Mary to “drive away Putin,” complete with highly critical and profane language. They chose a very meaningful venue: the Russian Orthodox Church, which had openly endorsed Putin. The Pussy Rioters were driven out of the church after less than one minute. They later edited and posted a video of their performance online.

On March 3, 2012, three members of the group, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina, and Yekaterina Samutsevich—Nadia, Masha, and Katya—were arrested and charged with the crime of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.” They have been in jail ever since.

The 10 witnesses—security guards, a candle-keeper, and a sacristan—said they suffered “moral damage” and are thus considered victims of the prayer, under the Russian Criminal Code. The lawyers who represent one of the security guards, Vladimir Potan’kin, said that their client was so mentally injured that he now has sleeping problems. Furthermore, in a twist not even worthy of a third-rate paperback, they stated that the Pussy Rioters are connected at the highest level to Satan himself.

The nature of the debate about freedom of speech, religious freedom, and political expression is one that is often misconstrued when that speech is profoundly offensive, crude, vulgar, or even malicious. “Nice” speech seldom requires defense. It is that which causes offense, whether or not it is intended, which must be protected if a society is to remain free. Deny freedom of expression to one and you effectively deny it to all. In those rare instances where restrictions on speech are permissible, they must be relevant, necessary, and pursuant to legitimate democratic aims—usually based on time, place, and manner, not on content. Had the Pussy Riot band interrupted a religious ceremony or had they been making loud noises at 4 a.m. in a quiet neighborhood, there would be grounds for restricting their actions. However, the prosecution of Pussy Riot meets none of these conditions.

Parody, irony, and humor are some of the most powerful weapons against established authority, especially the despotic kind. It is why Socrates was sentenced to death; it is why Voltaire’s criticism of the French absolutist monarchy was so disruptive that he was exiled from Paris; it is why Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa, who hypocritically just granted asylum to Julian Assange, sued a journalist and newspaper for $42 million for a column that made fun of him as a tyrant; it is why Hugo Chavez in Venezuela extended the contempt laws to make it a crime to disrespect him, leading to investigations of cartoonists; it is why Manal Al- Sharif fears for her life in Saudi Arabia for driving a car and challenging the ban on female drivers; it is why Ai Weiwei is hit with trumped up tax-evasion charges after mocking China’s dictatorship, and why Aung San Suu Kyi was held under house arrest by the Burmese military junta until just recently. The despotic mind is utterly undone and utterly defenseless in the face of creative dissent.

Putin understands what Havel meant when he said “I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than 10 military divisions.” In Russia, a simple punk prayer has the government trembling. What Putin has failed to realize is that his intolerance for dissent will make matters much worse for his regime.

The very term “Pussy Riot” has now entered the pop culture lexicon to the point that Madonna, Bjork, Sting, and Paul McCartney, among dozens of artists, have all declared public support for the band. Free Pussy riot concerts are being held in 48 cities around the world today.

As “Nadia” so eloquently and accurately observed in her closing statement:

“By and large, the three members of Pussy Riot are not the ones on trial here. If we were, this event would hardly be so significant. This is a trial of the entire political system of the Russian Federation... Despite the fact that we are physically here, we are freer than everyone sitting across from us on the side of the prosecution. We can say anything we want and we say everything we want... So, open all the doors, tear off your epaulets; Come, taste freedom with us.”

Read the original article in Forbes.

by Thor Halvorssen and Pedro Pizano.

(Photo © DR)

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

A Human Rights Toast for an African Tyrant

2012-08-09T14:35:38Z

Equatorial Guinea brutalizes its people like North Korea and Syria. So why is a prominent U.S. foundation cozying up to its dictator?

In the campaign for human rights and justice in apartheid South Africa, black American civil rights leaders were instrumental. One was Leon H. Sullivan, who enunciated the "Sullivan Principles" guiding multinational firms toward treating blacks fairly while doing business in South Africa. Why, then, is the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation today celebrating the exploits of a brutal African tyrant?

On Aug. 20, a plane-load of lobbyists, civil rights leaders, entertainers and former government officials will land in the West African nation of Equatorial Guinea for the Sullivan Summit IX. The summit's stated objective is to "create an atmosphere of open dialogue about the state of human rights and the interconnected issues of modern Africa." Seldom has so much dishonesty fit into one sentence.

Equatorial Guinea is home to Africa's longest-ruling dictator, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who seized power in a military coup by executing his uncle 33 years ago. Freedom House ranks the country among the "worst of the worst" human-rights abusers, along with North Korea, Syria and Somalia. Yet the Sullivan Foundation is celebrating its Obiang-hosted summit as a milestone for human rights, part of its "unwavering commitment to democratic ideals."

According to the agenda posted online, summit attendees will lounge at a five-star resort for a week discussing human rights and economic development, all between black-tie dinners and champagne. They may toast to the petroleum-rich country's staggering per capita income of $36,515 (according to the World Bank), but outside the resort the people of Equatorial Guinea will continue to toil in poverty. Sixty percent live on less than $1 a day, the majority don't have access to clean water or electricity, and nearly one in eight children die before their fifth birthday.

Since his 1979 coup, Mr. Obiang has rigged every election to give himself more than 95% of the vote. He has criminalized dissent, tortured or disappeared his opponents, and killed tens of thousands (as documented by historian Randall Fegley, among many others). Under his iron first, Mr. Obiang siphons billions of dollars in oil revenues into his family coffers. Still the Sullivan Foundation's marketing materials praise him for a "tremendous emphasis on social development and good governance."

Nor is this month's summit the first time the Sullivan Foundation has cozied up to Mr. Obiang. Last December it bestowed on him its "Beacon for Africa" award for "exemplary contributions to improving the lives of Africa's most vulnerable citizens." When news of the award first leaked, the foundation initially denied that Mr. Obiang was honored, tweeting that a horrible mistake had been made. It then pretended that it was honoring only the rotating presidency of the African Union, which happened to be held at the time by Mr. Obiang.

It doesn't end there. In June, foundation President and CEO Hope Sullivan Masters—daughter of Leon Sullivan, who died in 2001—hosted a private reception for Mr. Obiang at her Maryland mansion. As for criticism of the upcoming summit, Ms. Masters wrote on her foundation's website this week that it is "yellow journalism," "salacious and blasphemous." She added: "If these critics wish, they are more than welcome to attend the Summit and see for themselves the advancements made by President Obiang for his country."

The dictator has made a practice of linking himself to international organizations. This year he paid Unesco, the U.N.'s cultural and educational arm, $3 million to establish the Unesco-Equatorial Guinea International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences. Unesco's executive board agreed to sponsor the prize over objections from its own lawyers, the U.S. government and others.

The Sullivan Foundation's chairman is Andrew Young, a former mayor of Atlanta and U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and its board of directors includes former President Bill Clinton. If Messrs. Young, Clinton and their colleagues want to help Africa and Equatorial Guinea, they should be on the side of the people, not the dictators. They might support EG Justice, which promotes human rights, rule of law, transparency and civic participation in Equatorial Guinea. (EG Justice is based in the U.S. because human-rights groups can't operate in Equatorial Guinea.) Perhaps the Sullivan Foundation could host gatherings for EG Justice's founder, Tutu Alicante, instead of the murderous dictator who has long immiserated his country.

The summit begins in a few days without any hope of achieving its supposed objectives: "to protect the infirmed, the poor, the defenseless, and the isolated," "to explore how the public and the private sectors can manage a changing society while not leaving our most vulnerable members behind," and to "drive a world economy that will benefit all." Gathering under Mr. Obiang's banner will undermine those goals in Equatorial Guinea by lending support to a repressive, exploitative system that benefits an elite few who remain in power through crime and violence. It is an appalling swindle.

by Thor Halvorssen and George Ayittey

(Photo © DR)

Mr. Halvorssen is president of the Human Rights Foundation (HRF). Mr. Ayittey, a native of Ghana, is president of the Free Africa Foundation and serves on HRF's International Council.

Read the original article in The Wall Street Journal.

Read HRF's initial press release and August 1 letter to the Sullivan Foundation. Read the response published by the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation. Read HRF's response to the Sullivan Foundation.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

Cuba, Russia, and China Shut Down UN Human Rights Discussion About Venezuela

2012-07-06T14:16:53Z

Last Thursday (28 June), I was on the schedule to deliver testimony at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. I was invited to be part of UN Watch's campaign to stop Hugo Chavez's bid to elect Venezuela to a seat on the council this November.

NGOs are alloted several minutes to say their piece and contribute to the debate about rights. I sat down to deliver my speech and no sooner had I mentioned the word 'Cuba' in the context of human rights violations than the Cuban delegation began to create a scene, complete with banging their fists on the table and kicking over a chair, to force the council president to interrupt my speech on a point of order.

Watch the heated 12-minute exchange from 28th June at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Here is what I was able to say:

My name is Thor Halvorssen and I am from Venezuela. In 2004, my mother was shot by the security forces of the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez.

Through the Human Rights Foundation, which I founded and direct, I have carefully monitored the Venezuelan state and have established that its current government is among Latin America's worst human rights violators.

In Venezuela, exercising free speech is fraught with risks. Political dissent is criminalized. Property is capriciously and unlawfully seized. Opposition politicians are disqualified from elections thanks to false accusations. Journalists are harassed and media critical of the government is simply shut down. Judges are fired and even sent to prison when the president dislikes their rulings. More than 150,000 people have been killed in Venezuela since Lieutenant Colonel Chávez was elected president in 1999. Add to this the more than 5,000 who have died in the country's disgraceful prisons, many of them awaiting trial and therefore possibly innocent of the charges that put them behind bars in the first place. No such murder rate has ever existed in Venezuela, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. The government has proven that it is incapable of protecting the most basic human right - the right to life.

While all of this has taken place this council has remained silent.

Madam President, despite all of this, Venezuela is now seeking election to this council. When it was founded in 2006 the council promised that only those countries that "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" would be the ones elected. To elect Venezuela would shame and embarrass this council and would allow Venezuela to shield its horrendous record of abuse and - equally problematically - to validate other authoritarian governments such as Syria, Iran and one that sits shamefully on this council: Cuba. Electing Venezuela would deny this council the chance to shine a light into the darkness that envelops Venezuela and it will blunt actions to protect 29 millions Venezuelans who are at the mercy [of a malicious and incompetent government].

At this point, the Cuban representatives of the 53-year Castro family dynasty began their kinetic table-banging. They asked that my words be struck from the official UN record. A debate ensued between Cuba, China, and the US as to whether to include my remarks. I was given the floor back by the council's president so that I could 'finish' my statement and I was able to get this line out:

"Madam President, this year, four authoritarian governments - China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Russia - will step down. You have a golden opportunity..."

It was as if a crime had been committed. Cuba, Russia, China, and Pakistan all loudly protested. The council's president immediately cut me off. Cuba stated it would not permit such language in the council. Russia aligned itself with Cuba and stated that the human rights council had its own agenda. Russia accused me of violating procedure. China went further and demanded that I be prohibited from continuing with my presentation as it was out of the scope of what I was 'permitted' to say. In other words, mentioning human rights violators like Cuba or China (the only country with an imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize laureate), at the human rights council, in the time allotted to an NGO focused on human rights, is considered an unseemly deviation from the agenda.

I went to Geneva to leave testimony for posterity, given the demonstrable inefficacy of this august UN body, but I didn't expect that the dictatorships represented in the room would behave like a perfectly choreographed set of villains, as one would expect a dictatorship to behave. I was unable to finish but I didn't have to - they proved my point.

Outside the council, several country delegates approached me and thanked me for my 'courage'. How pitiable that it is considered courageous, inside the United Nations, which sits in a free country, Switzerland, to say a few words that could upset governments that should be pariahs. And to think that those who came over to me said they had to do so discreetly fearing that the Cuban delegation "might give us a lot of trouble." No less than two European powers are afraid of a bankrupt police state in the Caribbean whose main exports are broken dreams, exiled political prisoners and failed revolutionary ideas. No wonder the Human Rights Council is so dysfunctional. The only delegate to interact with me on the floor of the council was a diplomat from Sweden.

Venezuela will most likely succeed in obtaining a seat on the council this coming fall. And on Venezuelan state television they will boast of membership at the highest UN body addressing human rights - making it clear to any observer that the UN will not address human rights matters there. Remarkably, they have not once lived up to the dictates of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that has published findings of political persecution. Already, Venezuela has indicated it wishes to leave the highest human rights court in the Western Hemisphere - the Inter-American Court for Human Rights. Why? Because it loses, time and time and time again. At the UN, Venuzuela will take Cuba's seat as chief interrupter.

The experience was a powerful reminder that those who fear freedom of speech are those with something to hide. The truth - in Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela - is a frightful thing to the criminals in charge.

Thor Halvorssen is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation and founder and CEO of the Oslo Freedom Forum. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

In Global Arms Trade U.S. Taxpayers Enrich Russians Who Enable Mass Atrocities in Syria

2012-06-22T10:40:21Z

The bizarre confusion of morals in the global arms trade was brought to light late last week when the U.S. Department of Defense went on a PR offensive to justify their buying attack helicopters from a Russian firm responsible for arming the Syrian regime and enabling mass atrocities. The Obama administration is giving Rosoboronexport a contract with options to grow into a $925 million transaction. The purchase order is to outfit the Afghan military. “I don’t think we’re linking the two (issues),” said Pentagon spokesman Captain John Kirby in explaining the inconsistency of enriching the merchants of Syria’s death. That, however, is the point. No tyranny can last without the willing complicity of the free world and the arms trade perfectly illustrates this.

From China to Cuba and from Belarus to Vietnam, autocratic leaders have been supported by the United States, Britain, France, Sweden, Spain, Brazil, Israel, and many other Western nations that purport to stand for freedom. This is especially true with regard to the arms trade. What do the dealmakers gain? More than one-and-a-half trillion dollars in earnings through the sale of arms. How do they get away with it? Iron clad secrecy and a very particular set of rules.

In the rich exposé The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, $30), Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC member of parliament in post-apartheid South Africa, reveals the underbelly of state-sanctioned and underground arms trade that spans across several continents. Few books on the global arms trade have been published but none are as incisive and comprehensive as Feinstein’s The Shadow World (the last major work was The Arms Bazaar published more than 30 years ago). Feinstein examines everything from the South African arms deals with the UK, Sweden and Germany to the activities of U.S. armament companies that secure major contracts through bribery, political campaign contributions, and blackmail. Feinstein challenges the reader to consider whether we should “demand greater transparency and accountability from politicians, the military, intelligence agencies, investigators and prosecutors, manufacturers and dealers,” and by the end of this book, many readers will agree that greater transparency is necessary.

The Rwandan genocide is a “tragic exemplar of arms directly enabling and exacerbating conflict,” according to Feinstein, where weapons inflamed a latent civil tension into one of the bloodiest moments of the 20th century. Ethnic friction arose when colonial Belgium built an alliance with Tutsi leaders, a ruling class that was overthrown by Hutus in 1959. The Belgians then switched their alliance to the new Hutu regime, and by the time they left in 1962, Rwandan society was severed by ethnic conflict. Before the mass killings started, Rwanda’s then-president Juvénal Habyarimana had begun amassing arms from around the world. South Africa’s state-owned armaments company, Armscor, supplied $5.9m in weapons, and China exported tens of thousands of machetes to the Hutu government. Between October 1990 and June 1992, Rwanda also bought anywhere from $12m to $26m of arms from Egypt. It was Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then Egypt’s foreign secretary, and later U.N. secretary-general, who brokered and approved the arms sale to Rwanda. The deal was done in secret and the weapons were shipped to Rwanda packaged as “relief aid.” Consider that again: the Secretary General of the United Nations had previously brokered the arms deal that ultimately prepped the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a world tragedy the U.N. was set up to prevent. Is it any wonder that when the Rwandan genocide began the U.N. turned its back and pretended nothing was happening? A new documentary film U.N. Me addresses this tragic example of U.N. corruption (disclosure: I am credited as “Executive Producer” of the film). So big was the opportunity that preceded the Rwandan genocide that few world players were left out. The Anglophobic France, for instance, saw English-speaking Ugandan-backed Tutsis as a threat, and believed their arms sale would be an opportunity to expand French influence in Africa.

On April 6, 1994, a missile shot down the plane carrying president Habyarimana, officially starting the ethnic cleansing of Tutsis. It was only in May 1994, a month after the genocide began, that the UN placed an arms embargo on the country. The embargo did not mean that Rwanda stopped buying arms—it simply meant they relied on private gunrunners. One UK-based company was successful in breaking the arms embargo on Rwanda’s behalf. In just over three months, 800,000 people were slaughtered, at least half of whom were children; Up to 250,000 women were raped, 67 percent of whom contracted AIDS. For hundreds of thousands of Rwandans, schools and football stadiums had become executions grounds where firearms and grenades were used for the highest kill-rate possible, and most of the arms used were exclusively from the West.

The West, as hard as it tries to obscure it with PR campaigns, has continually enabled dictators—Charles Taylor and Muammar Gaddafi are recent examples—to commit mass atrocities, and there is no sign of decline in business for arms manufacturers and dealers. One can expect tyrannies like Putin’s or Chavez’s to take pride in the supply of weapons to monsters like Assad or terror groups such as Spain’s ETA or the Colombian FARC but it is unconscionable when free nations supply tyrannies with the very weapons they will use to violate human rights. Arms, in the end, are not evil, they are neutral—what isn’t neutral is whoever wields them.

Amidst rumors of slush funds and kickbacks, the stock prices of entities like BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have increased parallel to government spending. Even if corporations are watched more carefully—though that is unlikely as most are tightly connected to governments, heavily influencing elections through legal contributions and often covertly serving geopolitical interests—there are other means for illegitimate leaders to procure weapons. Countries like Iran who can no longer officially buy weapons from the U.S. due to severance of diplomatic ties, find underground private dealers to augment their American arms infrastructure from past dealings. Surprisingly, few individual gun runners face jail time because of weak international laws and relationships with state intelligence agencies. Of 502 violations of U.N. arms embargos only one has resulted in a conviction. The trade in weapons, Feinstein says, is less regulated than the trade in bananas. It follows that the arms trade accounts for 40% of the world’s corruption.

It is important to consider that the edifice of the world’s human rights violations is underpinned by the arms trade. Will this shadow world ever see the light of day? Feinstein is not hopeful. Corrective action begins with free societies and public exposure.

Feinstein’s Oslo Freedom Forum talk is a great start.

(Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.)

(Photo © Amnesty International)

The Human Rights Foundation Pens Open Letter To Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

2012-04-26T15:25:20Z

Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,

In November of 2011, the Human Rights Foundation invited Dr. Chee Soon Juan - one of your well-known critics and one of Singapore's most visible opposition leaders - to speak at the 2012 Oslo Freedom Forum, taking place May 7, 8, and 9 in Norway. The forum is an annual gathering for promoting democracy, human rights and justice.

Yesterday, we learned that Dr. Chee's application to leave Singapore to participate at the Oslo Freedom Forum was "not approved". I enclose a copy of an April 10 missive from Lydia Loh of the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office - an agency of your government - denying Dr. Chee permission to exit Singapore and travel to Oslo.

Your government's travel ban on Dr. Chee is but the latest in a series of instances where he has been penalized for criticizing Singapore authorities.

Two faces of Singapore: opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (WikiMedia Commons)

In 1992, Dr. Chee began his political career while still teaching at the National University of Singapore (NUS), joining the opposition Singapore Democracy Party (SDP). In 1993, after running an unsuccessful SDP campaign for a parliamentary seat, he was charged with misuse of research funds and fired by the head of his department at NUS, who was a member of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). Dr. Chee argued that the charges were politically motivated. In return, three university officials sued him for defamation, obtaining a judgment of US $350,000 in damages. Instead of declaring for bankruptcy, which would have prevented him from standing for election, Dr. Chee paid the sum by selling his house and possessions.

During the 2001 general election, Dr. Chee questioned an alleged multi-billion dollar loan offered by the government of Singapore to the Suharto government of Indonesia. In return, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tok brought legal proceedings against Dr. Chee for defamation, as did your father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, at that time senior minister. Dr. Chee was convicted and ordered to pay $350,000 in damages. Unable to pay this fine, in 2006 he was declared bankrupt, barred from standing for elections, and forced to seek government permission to travel overseas.

During the 2006 general elections, you and your father brought more defamation charges against Dr. Chee, this time for an article printed in the SDP newsletter, implying corruption in your government. Dr. Chee was convicted of libel and ordered to pay you and your father $416,000 in damages.

These are just three of the most prominent cases where Dr. Chee has been penalized for criticizing the government of Singapore. In the last 20 years he has been jailed for more than 130 days on charges including contempt of Parliament, speaking in public without a permit, selling books improperly and attempting to leave the country without a permit. Today, your government prevents Dr. Chee from leaving Singapore because of his bankrupt status.

A general travel restriction aimed at preventing a bankrupt individual from defrauding creditors may be legitimate. However, in this case, the travel restriction against Dr. Chee is aimed at further curtailing the freedom of expression of an opposition leader. It is our considered judgment that having already persecuted, prosecuted, bankrupted and silenced Dr. Chee inside Singapore, you now wish to render him silent beyond your own borders.

Singapore is bound by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is widely regarded as customary international law. Article 19 of the Declaration states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." According to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, while this right is subject to legitimate regulation, any restrictions on this right "must be clear, unambiguous as to the specific type of banned expressions, and proved to be necessary and proportionate, so as to prevent abuse for purposes beyond their intended purpose."

Along those lines, the Special Rapporteur has stated that defamation and libel laws should recognize that public figures have less protection from criticism than do private figures, that these laws should never be used to prevent criticism of governments, and that "the standards applied to defamation law should not be so stringent as to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression."

While freedom of expression is theoretically guaranteed by Article 14 of Singapore's constitution, your government imposes illegitimate restrictions on this right via the systematic and targeted application of the 1957 Defamation Act and Section 499 of the Penal Code against independent media and opposition leaders. In summary, the Singaporean government's major convictions of Dr. Chee violate international law, and enforcing a travel ban on him further enforces this violation.

We request that your government reconsider its travel ban on Dr. Chee and - in the spirit of human rights - allow him to leave Singapore for four days to participate in the Oslo Freedom Forum.

Dr. Chee would need urgent clearance, as he needs proper travel documentation from you to depart Singapore on May 6. Norway does not require Singaporean citizens to have entry visas. We have booked his return flight to arrive back in Singapore on May 10.

By allowing Dr. Chee to join us, you would send a message that your government is willing to allow its most well-known critic to participate in international dialogue.

Yours sincerely,

Thor Halvorssen

President
Human Rights Foundation

(Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.)

Review: No Enemies, No Hatred: Selected Essays And Poems By Liu Xiaobo

2012-02-23T14:11:23Z

Liu Xiaobo currently resides in the Jinzhou Prison in the Liaoning Province of China, serving an 11-year prison term. His “crime”: drafting and promoting Charter ‘08, a manifesto that demands human rights and democratic reforms in China.

Although well known in human rights circles, Liu first came to widespread international attention when he was named the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. When the prize was announced, Liu’s wife Liu Xia was promptly placed under house arrest, rendering her unable to attend the ceremony. Chinese state media then launched a vicious attack, denouncing Liu for winning an award "undeserved for a criminal".

While Beijing has done everything in its power to suppress Liu’s work and his international recognition, a recent collection of essays and poems allows readers to explore his unique insight. No Enemies, No Hatred: Selected Essays and Poems [Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, January 2012] features essays interspersed with poems selected by Liu’s wife. The most poignant are written to her and represent - ultimately - what the struggle is about: the choice between love and hatred. His poems converge with the academic essays, touching on critical reflections of state communist ideology, and diverging from the pedantic to examine instead the writer as a human being. The result is a provocatively sophisticated compendium of observations of contemporary Chinese authoritarian society.

Despite his profound contributions to the human rights movement in China, Liu’s essays are saturated with determined modesty and guilt. In the book’s first piece, "Listen Carefully to the Voice of the Tiananmen Mothers", Liu expresses regret for surviving the tumultuous Tiananmen Square protests while others were murdered by the Chinese government. "What have I ever done for the massacre victims?" he asks. He laments his "self-styled elitism" and the fact that he wrote a confession when in detention for the first time. It is perhaps this humble perception of his own contribution to the cause that drives him to continue to voice publicly his discontent with China’s one-party state: "If we stand up for our dignity," Liu explains, "we live nobly, no matter how much we may risk or suffer."

In the course of his writing, Liu makes an intriguing observation about China’s double standards in its relationship with the West. Despite its overtly anti-Western political stance, Beijing’s dogged nationalism is being chipped away by its people’s desire to "Westernize". In the recent past, "pretty-girl writers", who wrote about sexualized female characters cloaked in Chinese notions of Western clothes, in Western bars and Western notions of sex, became quickly popular in China, and Chinese films and television were filled with storylines of infidelity, prostitution and excess. "The craze for political revolution in decades past has now turned into a craze for money and sex," says Liu. He is concerned that the youth’s interest in political reform is being overtaken by an obsession with material things.

Liu isn’t entirely pessimistic about China’s progress towards democracy. With the help of the internet, Liu believes change can be made in China. He muses about how with the click of a mouse, his words can be made available to the world in less than a second. He is also hopeful the popular egaos (online political satires) will ease the eventual transition to democracy. "Satire of what is wrong implies that something else is right," says Liu.

Liu’s fearless essays are especially compelling because they bridge the gap between academic analysis of China’s political situation and dilettante observations of the country’s cultural and social evolution. They are an invaluable window into Chinese intellectual life and an extraordinary contribution to modern literature. Sadly, forceful discourse and revelatory disquisitions like these constitute a crime in today’s China. And Liu is not the only victim of this kind of political persecution. Human rights violations are state policy in China: forced labor camps hold millions of prisoners; arbitrary detention, media censorship, and blatant disregard for the rule of law are routine. Some may want to turn a blind eye to Beijing’s abuses because of its influence on the global economy or its record of poverty reduction since it abandoned Maoist socialism for Milton Friedman’s free enterprise system, but its draconian repression has made it one of the cruellest dictatorships on the planet.

The similarities with the writings of both Václav Havel and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn are striking. All three possess an uncomplicated ability to inspire the dignified and peaceful fight against totalitarianism. In Solzhenitsyn’s Nobel lecture, he asked what one man - let alone a writer - can do against the pitiless onslaught of naked violence: "violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood," and gave his prescription: "one word of truth outweighs the whole world." In a different decade, Havel observed: "If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth," and Havel’s time in prison is proof that truth - for a regime - "must be suppressed more severely than anything else." Liu’s decision to "live in truth" makes him unique among Chinese intellectuals.

In 1989, before returning to China from the United States, Liu said, "I hope that I’m not the type of person who, standing in the doorway to hell, strikes a heroic pose and then starts frowning in indecision." Liu didn’t frown. We shouldn’t either.

Thor Halvorssen is president of the Human Rights Foundation and founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum. He is a member of the International Committee to Support Liu Xiaobo.

Stopping Genocide: The Responsibility to Protect

2012-01-20T21:34:01Z

Should democratic governments step into the sovereign affairs of other states in order to prevent genocide or mass killings?

During World War II, German cleric Dietrich Bonhoeffer actively conspired against Hitler to resist the persecution of Europe's Jews. Bonhoeffer spent years subverting Nazi policy at the highest level and was even involved in the plot to kill Hitler. When Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor, was caught by Nazi officials, he was first held in military detention, then in a Gestapo prison, then at Buchenwald concentration camp, and finally at Flossenbürg concentration camp. As Allied forces approached Flossenbürg in 1945, the SS received orders to hang Bonhoeffer. Before he died, he explained his resistance to the Nazi regime: "If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try and wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver." In Bonhoeffer's mind those in a position to act have a responsibility to protect.

In the aftermath of the Third Reich, whose horrors were a grave wake-up call for the world's democratic nations, open societies began to recognize a responsibility to prevent despotic regimes from killing their own people on a massive scale. Almost 65 years after the Holocaust and decades after genocides and mass murders in Cambodia, Darfur, Ethiopia, and Srebrenica, a principle of government policy by the name "Responsibility to Protect" took form.

Also known as R2P, the doctrine was adopted in 2005 by the United Nations in the wake of genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. The policy obligates the international community to use diplomatic and humanitarian means to support governments in exercising the responsibility to protect their citizens, as well as coercive tactics - diplomatic, legal, economic, and as a last resort, military - in order to stop mass atrocities. R2P became the legal basis invoked to prevent crimes against humanity and war crimes last spring in Libya by NATO forces under the mandate of the UN Security Council.

Libya's Benghazi last April, where citizens draped city walls with pictures of Gaddafi's carnage.

Critics brand R2P an inconsistent policy, activated in the case of oil-rich and isolated Libya, but not in the case of Syria, which lacks oil and sits as a fragile flashpoint between Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and Turkey.

If something like Srebrenica were to happen today within Europe, R2P action might be trigged immediately. But when massacres occurred in Burma or the Congo, for instance, NATO turned a blind eye. Some critics conclude that R2P is led solely by economics; others believe it is racist. The truth is that democratic processes like R2P are imperfect - driven by competing self-interests - and messy. But authoritarianism is infinitely messier.

Indeed, the major challenge to R2P moving forward is represented by China and Russia. You will never see the UN address the repression of the Uyghur people in China, or the Tibetan population in the R2P discussion. You will never see the R2P doctrine implemented in Chechnya, a country that has been ravaged for two decades by Russia. The Russian and Chinese governments, members of the UN Security Council, are the two major obstacles that stand in the way.

According to Freedom House (PDF), 45% of today's governments, such as Chile, Japan, or Sweden, are fully democratic or "free"; 24% such as Burma, Cuba, or Zimbabwe are authoritarian or "not free"; and 31% such as Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela are elected authoritarian or "partly free". It is then quite remarkable that R2P was realized this year in Libya when you consider that 55% of the governments that sit at the United Nations aren't really interested in protecting their citizens. In fact, governments of nations that are partly free or not free often do great harm to their own people, especially to those individuals who criticize the government, point out corruption or human rights violations, or those who wish to participate in government through elections.

In a recent Oxford University Press book - The Responsibility To Prot ect: Th e Promise O f Stopping Mass Atrocities In Our Time - human rights lawyers Jared Genser and Irwin Cotler edit a volume of essays that range from endorsement to skeptical views of the doctrine. With an introduction by Desmond Tutu and the late Václav Havel, the assembled contributors have produced the most informed discussion on how best to apply R2P to current and future humanitarian crises (full disclosure: Václav Havel was Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation at the time of his death and HRF partly financed the publishing of this book). Without a thoughtful dialogue, R2P could easily be dismissed as a toothless measure or be stereotyped as an imperialist tool for regime change and occupation.

Throughout history, governments have proven that they are - at best - late to address crises of this sort and - at worst - unconcerned. It has taken a very special set of circumstances for the UN to act on R2P given the nature of its member states, as well as the fact that free nations are too often driven by economic concerns (the number of former Western government officials and public intellectuals on Gaddafi's payroll is staggering). What made the difference in Libya - and will make the difference in the future of R2P - is civil society. R2P will only become a consistent and honest policy that saves lives in future crises if civil societies take the lead in monitoring global human rights violations and calling for appropriate action.

By "civil society", I refer to the billions of people living in the free world: men and women who can speak out and bear witness. Those who saw that the images of slaughter in Benghazi contrasted with the rantings of Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam, who threatened to crush protestors with tanks and raved that "anybody who undermines the sovereignty of the state shall be punished by death".

Fifty years ago, people would read such pronouncements and learn of the tragic aftermath days or even weeks after the fact. News is no longer subject to the monopoly of mass media or the whims of editors who think too many stories about one region or one country are excessive. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have changed all that, empowering the citizenry with more access to information.

People in democratic countries can cry out for their leaders to take action, to stop obvious atrocities. And those of us who can speak out have a responsibility to do so, to ensure that our elected leaders respond to mass killings before they unfold, rather than cover them up with euphemisms. This is exactly what happened in Libya, when we heard those voices uploaded by mobile phone, crying out for help. People were outraged and governments made decisions knowing that their citizens and media knew the truth. Empathy plays a key role and culture has become central to promote the universality of human rights.

Whether it is due to Elie Wiesel's "Night" on the Holocaust, Gilbert Tuhabonye's "This Voice in My Heart" about the genocide in Burundi, the films "Hotel Rwanda" or "Schindler's List", or the PBS documentary "The Armenian Genocide", people in free countries have never before been more sensitive to the reality of mass killings and the need to do something to stop them. Consider that in the first half of the twentieth century there was no organized civil society effort to stop atrocities and, today, there is a formidable growing network of institutions and non-governmental bodies.

For R2P to work, civil society must play the leading role in pressuring governments. They won't act unless we force them to do so - consistently, and with integrity.

Thor Halvorssen is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation and founder and CEO of the Oslo Freedom Forum. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

(Photo © DR)

North Korea: Behind the Veil

2012-01-11T11:21:54Z

As the world focuses its attention on the horrors of Kim Jong Il's rule, the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) uploads three important talks given at the Oslo Freedom Forum to take you behind the regime's repressive curtain. Hear from two of the world's most prominent North Korean dissidents and one of the world's most prominent North Korea experts.

Park Sang-hak, 2009 Oslo Freedom Forum

Defector and chairman of Fighters for a Free North Korea

"In this country, one can die from uttering one wrong word; people starve to death; one cannot go anywhere without a public pass. In this country, there are modern-day Auschwitz concentration camps; no religion exists; the regime supports production of illegal drugs, counterfeit bills and cigarettes. In this country, the whole population is classified into twelve hierarchical groups; millions starve to death while the dictator spends close to a billion dollars for his father’s memorial; there is neither radio nor Internet. In this country, one has to serve at least ten years in the military; there is the biggest income gap in the world; and the monthly wage is less than a dollar for most people. This country is North Korea."

Kang Chol-hwan, 2010 Oslo Freedom Forum

Prison camp survivor; author, The Aquariums of Pyongyang

"North Korea is like one large prison. Public executions and concentration camps are commonly accepted in general North Korean society. Within these camps, not only political criminals are captured, but their family members from around the land are also rounded up and killed… Unlike in the African deserts, North Korea is the only starving country with perfectly good natural resources… Kim Jong-il spent $809 million to create a mausoleum for his father. Just $300 million can feed North Korean people for one year."

Barbara Demick, 2011 Oslo Freedom Forum

Author, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea

"In North Korea, there are no dissidents…there is no Internet…there are no elections; there are no opposition leaders… [The regime] has taught the North Korean people that they have nothing to envy in the world- that they live in the greatest country and in order to maintain this lie, they have to keep absolutely all outside information out of the country. So you have a system where the radios are fixed to a single station, where the television is fixed to a single station. You can’t see any kind of foreign media. The Bible is banned – for a very interesting reason – because they have ripped off a lot of the language of the New Testament: Kim Il-sung is God, Kim Jong-il is the son of God… North Korea remains, I believe, the worst country in the world to live."

Uganda: A Brutal Reality Obscured

2011-12-16T10:45:42Z

General Yoweri Museveni has ruled Uganda for more than 25 years. Since taking power in a 1986 military coup, he has stacked this Central African country's voting commission with his henchmen and stolen its elections. Having abolished presidential term limits in 2005 in a sham referendum, he plans to rule for life, and is grooming his son for succession.

Having ruled Uganda since 1986, Yoweri Museveni has been likened to Robert Mugabe

Museveni has used the Ugandan state treasury to build a climate of fear through a security apparatus that persecutes dissidents and critics with imprisonment, torture, disappearances and extra-judicial killings. He has reduced the country's parliament to a rubber-stamp body, censored the nation's media, and militarized its civil institutions.

To distract his countrymen, Museveni has fanned the flames of homophobia in Uganda to the point of encouraging legislation that would penalize homosexuality with execution. By rallying the public against "the homosexual threat" with one hand, he is able to free his other hand to continue consolidating his repressive rule.

Museveni is waging a war on Uganda's gay community and its human rights activists. Reports from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirm the country's descent into authoritarianism. According to British journalist Peter Tatchell, today's Uganda is "in effect, a constitutional dictatorship," and Museveni is "the new Robert Mugabe."

Most readers may have heard a very different story: one about how Museveni's "strong leadership" has brought stability, economic growth and a successful HIV/AIDS policy to war-torn Uganda. Indeed, Bill Clinton once lauded him as the head of a "new breed" of African leaders. As The Economist noted, Museveni has been "kindly treated" by the international media.

In large part, Museveni's transgressions have continued to be downplayed because he took power in the wake of Idi Amin's butchery and disastrous civil war. But the main reason Museveni has escaped criticism is that he enjoys an excellent public relations service.

Dictators like Museveni often hire PR firms to whitewash their records. These companies, mostly based in the U.S. and Europe, specialize in distracting the public from evidence of human-rights violations with glowing rhetoric about stability, economic growth and commitments to help the poor. Their propaganda finds its way into sources that are deemed reliable by many journalists, from articles in respectable news outlets to citizen media like Wikipedia.

Examples of firms that whitewash the human-rights violations of despotic regimes include Bell Pottinger (for Egypt's Hosni Mubarak), Qorvis Communications (for Equatorial Guinea's Teodoro Obiang), Brown Lloyd James (for Libya's Muammar Gaddafi) and Hill & Knowlton, which has made a small fortune working for Yoweri Museveni and has offices in every major world capital.

When companies are exposed or criticized for their activities, they respond that their associations with these regimes are "limited engagements" lasting only a few months or that their assignments have to do exclusively with "tourism" or "economic progress". If the true nature and extent of their work is revealed, they say that they are consultants helping to create "economic opportunity", providing a guiding hand to governments as they seek to improve the lives of their country's poor.

On its webpage, Hill & Knowlton claims that "since becoming president in 1986, Yoweri Museveni has introduced democratic reforms and has been credited with substantially improving human rights."

This couldn't be further from the truth about Uganda, where political opponents disappear, where journalists are arrested for criticizing the government and where any comprehensive human rights report contains appalling anecdotes and disturbing analysis about a country where the judiciary has very little independence and where the regime has very little respect for the rule of law.

An example of effective media manipulation is how the Hill & Knowlton quote provided above from their webpage can be found word-for-word in the BBC country profile of Uganda. From there, this mendacious fantasy has spread like wildfire (go ahead, Google the quotation).

PR agents try to alter the public perception of reality, distracting us from human rights violations so that deals and foreign aid can flow faster and in larger quantities - usually into Swiss bank accounts - while the PR agents themselves are rewarded handsomely.

Twenty-five years ago, upon the death of Bergen University professor Thorolf Rafto, a prize was created to honor his lifetime commitment to human rights. Professor Rafto began to pursue human rights work after reading Vladimir V. Tchernavin's I Speak for the Silent Prisoners of the Soviets. He organized student protests against the Gulag and devoted the rest of his life to individual rights. The 2011 Rafto Prize laureate is Ugandan individual rights activist Frank Mugisha. He is recognized at a ceremony here in Bergen for standing up against Museveni's scapegoating campaign against Uganda's community of sexual minorities.

Not being globally advertised, the Rafto Prize is not well known beyond a small but significant set of public intellectuals and policy institutions. But it has the distinction of having been awarded more than once to people who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Aung San Suu Kyi, Shirin Ebadi, José Manuel Ramos-Horta, and Kim Dae-jung were all presented with the Rafto Prize years before they were recognized by the Nobel Institute.

The Rafto Prize was first given in 1986 - a quarter century ago. That is how long Museveni has treated Uganda as his personal fiefdom and violated the human rights of millions. Perhaps Hill & Knowlton will recognize the 25th anniversary of the Rafto Prize by doing some pro bono work for human rights defenders like Frank Mugisha.

Thor Halvorssen is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation and founder and CEO of the Oslo Freedom Forum. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.