on October 16 when a boatload of 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers, all ethnic Tamils, were rescued from their sinking boat by the Australian ship, but in Indonesia’s search and rescue zone.

Initially Indonesia refused to allow the boat to dock at an Indonesian port, but after negotiations … Indonesia took the boat “on humanitarian grounds” because there was a sick child on board.

But the asylum seekers refused to leave the Australian ship, demanding they be taken to Christmas Island for processing by Australian authorities.

Oceanic Viking breakthrough: asylum seekers to come ashore

There has been a spike in asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat following the increasing violence in Afghanistan and the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Kevin Rudd’s government has been heavily criticised for both its handling of the Oceanic Viking incident and refugee policy in general. His stance is supposed to be tough on people smugglers and border security but humane towards refugees. Critics see it as either too hard or too soft. It’s either encouraging so-called boatpeople or abusing the rights of asylum seekers.

Veteran News Limited journalist Piers Ackerman prides himself on his right wing zeal. Never a friend of Labor governments, he rarely misses a chance to go for the throat:

The Rudd Government has only succeeded in making Australia a more enticing destination for wannabe migrants who don’t meet the nation’s needs, it has helped people jump the queue of refugees seeking resettlement and it has boosted the bank balances of international people smugglers.

Rudd’s red carpet to asylum seekers

Jeremy Sears of An Onymous Lefty is a regular critic of Ackerman. He addressed his remarks to those whom he sees as driven by xenophobia:

One of the most obvious questions I’d like to ask the “THEY’D BETTER NOT LAND HERE” crowd is – where would you like to send them?

You realise that what the people on the boats are doing is precisely what you would do in the same circumstances.
And yet you want them STOPPED. You want them LOCKED UP. You want them SENT HOME.
And the party that promises to treat these people the worst, that party will get your vote?

I’m not scared of the “boat people”. I’m scared of YOU.

Mark Thompson blogs at Seeking Asylum Down Under. His detailed responses to the current situation have looked for the positives in a sea of negativity:

Rudd is between a rock and hard place, politically speaking, as the Coalition [Liberal and National parties opposition] and its conga line of fear mongers in the media whip up the refugee issue yet again. Many people are very prone to xenophobic responses on ‘boat people', choosing to believe the fear drum beaten relentlessly by Turnbull, Stone, Andrews and Ruddock et al. There appears to be something in a large slice of the collective psyche that responds negatively to people arriving on boats.

His hope is for multi-lateral approaches to asylum seekers:

Australia must model best practice in this area, ensuring the provisions of international legal instruments and human rights conventions are followed to the letter. This can be a win/win for asylum seekers, the respective processing authorities, and the countries in the firing line. Opening a regional dialogue and developing a well-resourced multilateral approach, empowering all parties with a stake in a solution to this growing human crisis, would be a good start.

Labor all at sea on asylum seekers - but an opportunity presents itself.

Although this issue has generated a lot of heat and was a crucial part of the 2001 Australian Federal election, very few bloggers have posted about it lately. Perhaps it’s just too complex or a case of Tampa déjà vu.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) should be used to support and encourage cultural diversity and to preserve and promote the language, distinct identities and traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples, nations and tribes in a manner which they determine best advances these goals. The evolution of the information and communication societies must be founded on the respect and promotion of the rights of Indigenous peoples, nations and tribes and our distinctive and diverse cultures, as outlined in international conventions. We have fundamental and collective rights to protect, preserve and strengthen our own languages, cultures and identities.

But can ICT truly preserve and protect distinct identities and culture? Does ICT by its very intervention introduce an element of westernization amidst the indigenous culture that it purports to preserve and protect? What is the optimum balance between preserving traditional knowledge and embracing remix culture? The cultural debate surrounding deployment of ICT in the field of indigenous/ knowledge and culture simply refuses to die down.

According to Mark Oppenneer, “the implementation of ICTs in service to indigenous peoples in development settings is a double-edged sword”, as both the critics and proponents of ICT4D have seemingly irreconcilable perspectives.

Questioning the cultural neutrality of the ICT medium, Charles Ess, in his paper “Questioning the Obvious? Ethical and Cultural Dimensions of CMC and ICTs” states that

[..]. Far from serving as value-free or morally-neutral tools, CMC (Computer mediated Communication) technologies themselves appear to embed and foster the cultural values and communicative preferences of their Western designers. As a first example: South Africa has attempted to establish Learning Centres intended to empower indigenous peoples by helping them take advantage of the multiple potentials and capacities of ICTs. A series of observers have noted, however, that these Centres repeatedly fail – in part, because of basic cultural conflicts. Briefly, the Centres reflect their designer’s Western emphasis on individual and silent learning – in contrast with indigenous preferences for learning in collaborative and often noisy, performative ways (Postma 2001). This conflict is also captured in Edward T. Hall’s distinction between high and low context cultures (1976). In this schema, contemporary societies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Germanic countries show a preference for literate (i.e., textual), high content (but low context) information transfer – while societies such as Arabic cultures, indigenous peoples, and many Asian cultures prefer instead more oral, low content (but high context) modes of communication.

[…] Similarly, Western Group Support Systems (GSS) that favor anonymity as a feature intended to encourage open and direct communication proved disastrous in the Confucian cultures of South Asia, as this indeed succeeded in encouraging subordinates to make comments that were culturally interpreted – and condemned – as attacks on one’s “face” (Abdat and Pervan 2000). These and multiple other examples make clear that CMC technologies carry and further a specific set of cultural values and communicative preferences - ones that, far from being universally shared, are indeed limited to specific cultural domains.

Secondly, because these technologies thus clearly embed and foster specific cultural values and communicative preferences - the initial enthusiasm for these technologies inadvertently but powerfully only aids and abets a form of “computer-mediated colonization” that threatens to override diverse cultural values and communicative preferences with those defining the dominant economic and political powers of the West.

While Ess, worried about the medium defeating the intended purpose of preservation, calls for a more culturally-aware framework, others have pointed out that such concerns are not entirely correct.

In response to a query by David Sasaki, director of Global Voices' Rising Voices section, as to whether or not helping under-represented communities join the online global conversation inevitably leads to their westernization/Americanization,  Álvaro Ramírez and Diego Gomez, co-founders of the HiperBarrio project, spoke of the community adapting Western culture to their own needs, infusion of new knowledge and broadening horizons.

Citing the example of hip-hop music, Alvaro pointed out that for the community, while there was definitely some US influence, the issue was not so much Americanization as adapting something western to their own needs. So it was not only about getting influenced but exerting influence as well, giving birth to something new, new knowledge or culture. Diego noted that the project had also opened up other doors of communication beyond westernization.

I think that in this project especially they have been influenced not just by Americans they now begin to think about India, Dubai, and other cultures that they didn't know existed before. Or they didn't have much reference.

Projects such as the E-Bario project in Malaysia, Community project of the indigenous Ngalia and Badimaya people of Western Australia, the Alan - Gluban project in Taiwan are a few cases in point.

In the final analysis, as Mark Oppenneer points out

…the critics are right: misguided ICT4D implementation that doesn’t take into consideration a wide range of cultural factors and explicitly or implicitly imposes Western processes or structures upon indigenous recipients does constitute a new form of computer-mediated colonialism. And yes, the proponents of ICT4D are right: ICTs, when implemented thoughtfully and respectfully – keeping the needs of the recipients at the fore – can be powerful agents of change in the fight to reduce poverty and improve the lives of marginalized peoples in developing nations.

In his 2008 presentation, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - The Role of ICTs, Jesse Fidler listed various possibilities for ICT to actively engage the indigenous communities and realize their visions.

And as far as preserving the pristine, isolated local culture is concerned, Professor Amartya Sen perhaps summed it up best in his talk at the 3rd IDRC/ Harvard Forum on the future of information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) when he said that there is “no such thing as ‘unaided culture”, or ”culture that exists in isolation”.

baby by gabi_menashe

When a woman dies during pregnancy, childbirth or due to complications after delivery, it affects not only the family, but also the whole community. These videos, by different human rights organizations, go beyond statistics to tell us the stories of women and their families as they struggle to understand why it is that so many women are dying during childbirth and what needs to be done to stop this.

First, the White Ribbon Alliance produced a four minute video titled Birth and Death explaining the seriousness of Maternal Mortality and how it can be stopped:

UNICEF also created a two minute video to raise awareness about this issue, with 5 steps that can be taken to diminish maternal mortality: education, respect, empowerment, investing and protection.

In this next video, In Silence: Maternal Mortality in India by Human Rights Watch, photographer Susan Meiselas and reporter Dumeetha Luthra traveled to India to follow the story of a woman who died after giving birth:

In Peru, as told by this piece done for CARE by Phil Borges, the Watchmen for Lives program to decrease maternal mortality has proven to be a success: by empowering and educating women from within the communities in the importance of healthcare during pregnancy and by making a chart for midwives with warning signs on when to send women to a clinic - so more are going to clinics to give birth, dramatically reducing the numbers of deaths due to complications during labor.

Amnesty International has this documentary piece, 18 minutes long, about Maternal Mortality in Sierra Leone. One in 8 women die in Childbirth there: the inability to pay for medical attention, a practically non-existent healthcare system, lack of trained medical practitioners and understaffed and understocked clinics are the main reasons. As the women in the video tell: everyone there knows a woman who has died during pregnancy or labor.

And from Australia, students from the Nursing and Midwife program at the University of Sydney have created Birthing Kits that they've delivered to developing countries to try and prevent unnecessary deaths. It includes a plastic sheet to put under the mother, surgical gloves, scalpel blades, gauze, soap and string to tie off the umbilical cord. In the video, they tell of their initiative and the successful experience they've had in Bangladesh.

Babygate: trafficking children to cover demand

Malinda, an adoptive mother of two Chinese girls,  writes in her blog Adoption Talk about the lengths some corrupt individuals are going to ensure the steady flow of adoptable babies to people able to pay the pricey adoption fees. In her post Adoption Corruption: Trafficking in the news she highlights recent cases in Cameroon, where children are kidnapped in order to be placed for adoption; Korea, where young parents put their baby on sale on the Internet; Guatemala, where the army abducted and sold more than 333 children for adoption and where recently babies and children were put up for adoption without parental consent; and Ethiopia, where unregulated agencies are convincing families to give their children up for adoption, promising them the children will later return to them or that the agency will help support the remainder of the family. Similar cases have been seen in numerous other countries.

Mothers coming together to secure their human rights

Some adoptive mothers do what they can to ensure one woman's right to motherhood doesn't go against the reproductive rights of another mother.

One such option is open adoptions, a sometimes controversial decision where the child remains in contact with the birth mother and is aware that due to other circumstances, she wasn't able to take care of them.

One woman in the United States, Leigh, writes a blog called Open Adoption Round Table about the challenges of giving her child up for adoption in a semi-open arrangement.

Another blogger and writer Dawn Friedman tells a story in her blog from the opposite perspective of adopting her daughter, Madison, while keeping an open line of communication with the birth mother. Friedman is also an activist for adoption reform in the United States. She believes pregnancy counseling in unplanned pregnancies too easily pushes women towards giving up their babies for adoption without informing them adequately of how difficult it is. Friedman also recommends that the process of adoption counseling should include a post-labor session where women are accompanied through the decision making process and advised of their rights and possibilities after giving birth, in case they are having second thoughts or have additional concerns.

Birth mothers

Lorraine Dusky in the United States, who runs the Birth Mother, First Mother Forum had medical history that made her think that birth control pills she took during pregnancy could have affected the child she placed in adoption, but when she tried to contact the adoptive family through the agency to let them know, they refused to send over the information.

She relinquished her child with no particular coercion, but the laws for “closed records” in adoptions may have cost her daughter's life.

But what about natural mothers in developing countries? Where are their voices? Some of them have written letters to the children they've placed for adoption, as Pam Conell of families.com tells us in her book review of I Wish for You a Beautiful Life: Letters from the Korean birthmothers of Ae Ran Won.

Others are telling their stories through documentaries, or after being reunited with their natural children. And there are some others who tell of women who don't regret giving their children up for adoption, considering it was the best alternative. However some women, like  Malinda in the USA,  adoptive parent of Chinese Girls who writes AdoptionTalk believes that these last representations have to be taken with a grain of salt:

These representations of foreign birth mothers allow us to divorce ourselves from the experience of these birth mothers, to minimize their pain, and to justify how much better off our children are with us than with them.

The Voices of the Adopted:

Mary Grace in China by endbradley

The voices of the adoptees are as varied as any of the other parts of the adoption triad. But in general they share some points of view in common: The desire to know about their origins and the reason for their adoption and the hope that their birth mothers made an informed decision to part with them.  They also believe in the right to know their history if they choose, to know about their adoptee status from early on and have it acknowledged as part of their identity.

For example Susan from ReadingWritingLiving, an adult adoptee born in the 1960's, identified with TV drama Mad Men, particularly in their portrayal of adoptions in that time period, where women hid their shameful unwanted pregnancies until giving birth and how adopted children where seen as discards. She sums it up in her post Mad Men: A Window into my Own Past

Yes, it was painful to hear this but also WILDLY refreshing to have someone just come out and SAY it.

In the I am adopted [es]blog in Spanish, David Azcona writes about his difficult childhood, adoption at the age of 6 and the instability and inability to bond with people [es] he's felt since. It is also a place for other adoptees to post their adoption stories, and to share their experiences. In the comment threads of his about page, stories about apropriated babies [es] with no knowledge of their birth parents, twins separated at birth[es] by nurses who told parents one of the babies had died[es] and requests from birth mothers trying to contact their children as well as the other way around.

An adoptee answers a question asked on a website regarding love between adoptees and adoptive parents:

I was adopted as a baby by the two most loving, caring and supportive parents a child and young adult could ever wish for. I also have a younger adopted brother.

I don't think my biological parents could have loved me more than my adoptive ones.

Other adoptees with similar experiences chime in, some with relationships with both natural parents and adoptive parents and others who have only known their adoptive families. In this particular thread, the experiences are overwhelmingly positive towards adoption.

Some adoptees advocate against adoption. Lost Letters, an adoptee herself who writes in the Anti-Adoption livejournal community believes that instead of using so much money to aid in adoption processes and fees, it should be spent in improving the conditions of the birth parents so they can take care of their family. She adds:

I understand that my actual position on adoption is going to piss people off because people want to believe that adoption is a win/win/win situation for everyone, because people think that middle class white women deserve children no matter what, because people think that our western society is so wonderful that all children should be bought up here.

AmyAdoptee who posts in the Adult Adoptees Advocating for Change forum writes:

The adoption industry intentionally pits us against each other.  We are letting them do it.  In fact, the adoption industry gets a wonderful kick out of this.  Here is an article that supports generally our point of view but they ask that we refrain from attacking adoptive parents.  There is nothing wrong with a healthy discourse.

PhilM, in the same forum thread discussing how adoptive parents perceive them, clarifies:

I’m angry at a society that ignores the problems of adoption, and the harm it causes. I’m angry that when I try to talk about these things, I am marginalized and dismissed with comments along the lines of “well, everyone experiences it differently” and “most adoptees I know love their adoptive parents” and others. I am angry that, because I speak out about adoption, people question my love for my adoptive family. And, I admit, I get angry when individuals parrot these messages.

I don’t need a lecture for how to behave in dialogue. I need people willing to engage in it.

The way forward

As with any delicate issue, it touches a sensitive chord for all those involved: adoptive mothers, birth mothers and adopted children. However, it seems they all meet and agree on one important point: Transparency in the adoption process is vital to safeguard the human rights for the mothers and the children, and discussing adoption openly encourages transparency.

EDITED TO ADD:

We have removed a reference to a blogger who didn't wish to be quoted or mentioned in this post. To her, our apologies, it was in no way our intention to infringe on her or offend, but to provide a multiplicity of visions regarding a sensible subject.

This week his successor Kevin Rudd became embroiled in another controversy:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he spoke to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on the weekend before Indonesian authorities intercepted 260 Sri Lankans on a boat who were on their way to Australia.

Asylum seekers stopped after PM's call

Heavyweight blogger Mark Kenny is Political Editor of The Advertiser, a News Limited paper in Adelaide. He blogs at The Punch, an online venture that brings together both News Limited staff and dozens of independent writers from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests. His response was scathing of the PM:

In just one interview in Adelaide this week, Kevin Rudd used the terms “tough” and “hard-line” over and over again and repeatedly declared the Government made “no apology” for its hairy chested approach to boat people.

His condemnation of both leaders is unequivocal:

Yet there is no more pressing moral question before the world than the human rights of the forcibly displaced - some 42 million of them at present. And like capital, the movement of people is a global reality also.

The Government should now have the courage of its convictions and stare down the fear campaign being waged against it. If ever there was a case for evidence-based policy, it is here and now. That would be real moral leadership - voters respect that too.

My name is Kevin Rudd, and I’m just like John Howard

Mark Henderson, at The Australian Conservative blog, has the opposite view:

Kevin Rudd unwinds the Howard Government’s tough but highly successful measures against boat people and almost two thousand illegal immigrants find their way onto Australian territory.

… What a joke.

The “most hardline measures” involves nothing more than a phone call to the Indonesian president.

Rudd is not prepared to make the really hard decisions the Howard Government took, decisions that made it deeply unpopular with large sections of the media and the elite commentariat, but decisions that actually stopped the flow of illegal immigrants and stopped the tragic loss of life at sea.

Tough on illegals? Who’s he trying to kid?

Guy Beres’ presents his self-titled blog as: ‘Reflections on social democracy, economics, the media, and spin in an age of incorrigible cynicism’. In a lengthy and impassioned analysis of the issue he argues:

The Opposition seems desperately keen to contrast its own historical rhetoric on asylum seeker issues with the slightly softer, more humane approach being taken by the Rudd Government. Forgetting for a moment the rather ugly and sometimes disturbing human rights issues raised by the previous government’s mandatory and indefinite scheme of detention, the Opposition wants to remind us that they were “tough” on boatpeople when in government, and that Labor is “not so tough”. In concert with this mode of attack, every rickety boat that happens to depart Colombo or elsewhere on its way to Australia apparently represents a failure of Rudd Government policy in comparison with the Howard Government’s illustrious record.

The boatpeople furphy re-emerges

Incidentally a ‘furphy’ is an Australian term for a red herring or false report.

Meanwhile we haven’t heard the last of these Sri Lankan asylum seekers as they are on a hunger strike:

THE 255 Sri Lankan asylum seekers staging a hunger strike last night remained defiant, insisting they would not leave their boat or even consume liquids, despite the blazing heat.

A young girl who made a plea for asylum on their behalf has been the subject of a personal attack:

Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan high commissioner, Senaka Walgampaya, cast doubt on the account of a nine-year-old girl on the boat, Brindha, who made an emotional appeal for the Tamils to be helped. ”She is crying and weeping and said, ‘We were in the jungles for one month',” he said. ”But she is quite well nourished and she spoke very good English. She is not from Sri Lanka.”

Boat people shun fluids in stand-off

There are seemingly no innocents in this ongoing struggle. It is not an issue that will disappear soon as a visit the news website of Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) will attest. A click on the refugees tag brings up dozens of recent stories involving Australia.

Bloggers around the world are writing about climate change today, October 15, as part of Blog Action Day. One less obvious potential solution to climate change is related to the availability of contraceptives and reproductive health services. Many studies in the past few months have examined the relationship between population growth and climate change, some in support and others against using family planning as a method of emissions reduction and to minimize the impact of climate change. EJ, blogging on New Society Publishers in Canada, elaborates:

“This issue of who lives and who dies, who can have more children and who should have less children, is also beginning to raise its head in the climate change movement…

…Global population is a serious consideration for the future of our ecosystem. We have been debating this issue since at least 1972 when the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth, and yet solutions continue to evade us as we become embroiled in the emotional debates around reproductive choice, euthanasia and quality of life. The issue is so gnarly that some environmentalists refuse to discuss it.”

The world's population is expected to reach more than 9 billion people by 2050, with 95 percent of this growth in developing countries. Those in support of investing in reproductive health services and contraception to combat climate change argue that having fewer children means less carbon emissions and less strain on diminishing natural resources.

An editorial in the medical journal Lancet last month called attention to the links between rapid population growth and increased vulnerability to the consequences of climate change, such as food and water scarcity and environmental degradation. It suggested that by reducing unintended pregnancies, we could slow the high rates of population growth and possibly ease pressure on the environment. The Lancet says that over 200 million women want, but currently lack, access to modern contraceptives, resulting in 76 million unintended pregnancies every year.

An economic case was made for investing in reproductive health by a recent study from the London School of Economics (LSE) and commissioned by the UK-based Optimum Population Trust. It showed that contraception is almost five times cheaper than leading green technologies, such as wind and solar power and hybrid or electric cars, to combat climate change. Specifically, the study found that each $7 (£4) spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by more than a ton, but it would cost a minimum of $32 (£19) to achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies.

Matthew Yglesias, blogging on Yglesias in the United States, supports the study's finding:

“The evidence is pretty clear that in societies where women are empowered and have access to contraception, that on average they want modest-sized families. And what this study is talking about is specifically what could be accomplished by closing the gap between the level of contraception that people want to have and the level of contraception they’re actually able to maintain. There are dozens of good reasons to think closing that gap would be beneficial, the impact on the environment is one of them.”

Still, Ann, blogging on Feministing in the United States, remains wary of the study's recommendations, saying:

“The LSE report contains a prominent caveat that this is about non-coercive family planning, but using fears about climate change as a way to expand contraceptive use is eerily reminiscent of ‘population control' policies, some of which were coercive and all of which were rooted in the idea that certain people should be having fewer babies…

…We all understand that empowering women to determine their own reproductive fates leads to other benefits — economic, societal, and yes, environmental. But given the history of population policy, to me the only acceptable international family planning policy is one that is motivated by increasing the empowerment and choices for women. Full stop.”

The New Security Beat says that countries such as India are objecting to bringing population into the climate change debate without more focus on reducing consumption in developed countries. A recent study supports this assertion. Published in the journal Environment and Urbanization, it shows there is at most a weak link between population growth and rising emissions of greenhouse gases. The study's researchers say the real issue is not the growth in the number of people, but the growth in the number of consumers and their consumption levels.

Simeon, a reader of Malawi's NyasaTimes commented on the study:

“The West needs to learn to live simply if we are ever going to cut these green house emissions. This may sound like moralising, after all Africans envy the western lifestyle and see it as a model of prosperity and happiness. We waste time connecting population growth climate change. I am happy that the study has finally exposed the lie behind this long held fallacy. President Yoweri Museveni recently at the United Nations asked a very tough question: ‘If the whole world were to have access to the western lifestyle, would the planet be able to support us?' I see that in the years to come the concept of development needs to be seriously reviewed and changed. Maybe to develop may mean living healthily and not necessary having everything”

Ruth Limkin, a pastor blogging from Australia, says maybe we should take a different approach altogether, where people are the solution and not the problem:

“What if we invested in innovation and respected reproduction?

The inherent potential in humanity itself is stunning if ever appreciated in its breadth and depth. The genesis of a truly great, revolutionary idea for energy generation, for agricultural technology, for waste reduction or for recycling methods may lie in the person you met yesterday.

Or it may lie in the fourth child of a family in Africa or India. What if, instead of controlling population, we created opportunities for education, established cultures of creativity and encouraged responsible, careful use of the natural resources around us?”

Photo of Friendly Condoms by Alaskan Dude on Flickr, Creative Commons.

On one hand, the traditions encapsulated in indigenous knowledge are culturally unique, using local understanding to solve local problems. This makes it an important component in the fields of ecology, education, agriculture and health security. On the other hand, the internet is lauded for spreading information to help people, but it is also a bazaar, tilted towards large corporations and the economies of scale: Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft, PayPal. Indigenous knowledge has certain spiritual and ceremonial components; the internet is largely agnostic, and makes a good deal of money peddling pornography.

For all their perceived differences, the indigenous knowledge and global knowledge systems have become much closer in the past decade. Indigenous knowledge practitioners have begun leveraging different media to exchange ideas and publicize traditional learning to the larger world.

A researcher in Ethiopia argues Internet and Communication Technologies, called ICTs, can be used as cheap methods to capture, store and disseminate various forms of indigenous knowledge for future generations.

ICTs also increase access to indigenous knowledge systems, especially to schools, where this learning can be incorporated into classrooms.

Moving into education systems

As stated above, ICTs provide a perfect example for integrating indigenous knowledge into both formal and informal education systems. Technology could facilitate disseminating ideas about local cultures to students and provide schools the possibility to teach some curriculum in a local language.

Before we get into specific examples, let’s follow this debate with two bloggers on the importance of making students aware of different knowledge systems. For one, does increasing access to traditional knowledge give it more credibility in the eyes' of students?

Perhaps. George Sefa Dei, at The Freire Project blog, argues that in both development and education issues, scholars and practitioners need to find a balance between tradition and modernity.

Students have often queried why and how is it that certain knowledges count more so than other ways of knowing. There is a realization on the part of learners that knowledge is operationalized differently given local histories, environments and contexts. Unfortunately, the processes of validating knowledges fail to take into account this multiplicity of knowings that can together comprehensive speak to the diversity of the histories of ideas and events that have shaped and continue to shape human growth and development. In questioning the hierarchy of knowledges learners also allude to the problematic position of neutral, apolitical knowledge. It is important then in our teaching of Africa we lay bare and grasp the processes through which for example, Western science knowledge positions itself as neutral, universal and non-hegemonic ways of knowing, and furthermore seeks to invalidate and devalue other ways of knowing.

This sounds good in theory. How well does it work in practice?

Passionate Pedagogue, in a comment to the above post, illustrates a major hurdle.

I spend hours combing the Internet looking for sites about the peoples I teach in my history classes written by the peoples I teach. Oftentimes the sites I locate are too complicated or tacit for students to understand. Other times, the sites (rightfully so) are so culturally-specific that a teenager with no cultural capital about the area or peoples involved cannot possibly understand them. This leaves little actual “indigenous” information that is accessible to students.

I trust that during my career as a teacher critical pedagogues will work to create student-centered access to indigenous knowledge. My hope is that the information that we gleam from the invaluable contributions of indigenous peoples does not become relegated to university sociology textbooks or primers in critical pedagogy. While it is of course wonderful for graduate students and academics to take the lessons that Native Peoples the world over have to offer to heart, perhaps we should be weary of becoming Napoleon’s in our own right; publishing surveys of Native history by Natives that only serve the higher echelons of academia.

Where there are no sources

When finding source material becomes too difficult, some teachers have decided to make their own. Here are two examples of projects where technology can be a boon for students learning about different cultures. The first comes from Australia, from Scot Aldred, who writes the blog e-learning.

Specifically, I'm interested in developing a WIKI section devoted to indigenous Australians; their diverse culture, history, language and their land. While there is some publicly available information in hard copy publications, it is not substantial and does not detail all of Australian indigenous nations and their people. Online the situation is much worse with very little accurate information available.
Just imagine if all of Australia's school students had an opportunity to contribute to a public WIKI with information about the indigenous people native to their geographical area. Much of Australia's indigenous history is passed down by an oral tradition of story telling. The old people, the elders and some historians have information that could be shared with all Australians and the world.

… What about having a shared Webspace available to all of Australia's schools (public and private) where schools would submit a list of eligible persons who could create content and collaborate. Additional roles/permissions for moderators who would again be nominated by the schools.

A comment from Ginga, who is from the American state of Alaska.

Your ideas on collecting indigenous knowledge, and sharing it with the world in a collaborative environment (wikis and more) run parallel to several projects happening in the Bering Strait School District in northern Alaska.

Our staff and students are creating wiki-dictionaries in Inupiaq, and Siberian Yupik to document the native languages in our area. Students post a sound file, local image, and other information they have collected. We're also trying to develop other projects that have flexible formats for student sharing and collaboration on our wiki.

The tower of Chinglish?

At least one expert argues that with all the promise of ICTs, many traditional organizations feel they get lost in the “overload” of the Internet. Their websites lag in search engine relevance and (sometimes) lack a polished feel.

One problem is language. It is hard for a website written in say, Greenlandic (spoken in Greenland) or Cha'palaa, a language from Ecuador, or Bisaya, from the Philippines, to compete for page views with websites written in Spanish, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese or Arabic. Translating pages is often difficult and time consuming.

However, ICTs have the potential to expand a language’s reach. Perhaps it is through online classes or through tutorials or small applications for phones and computers. This is especially important because of the sometimes-frail environment indigenous languages now live.

Here is a good discussion of the issues surrounding language and technology from Heather, who lives in the US and blogs at flex your info. She brings up the fact that technology may provide a good means to communicate for members of her tribe living in distant places. However, “[t]echnology can be put to even better uses: cultural revitalization and preservation.” This does come with its own share of issues.

Native languages have long been endangered by a combination of urbanization and modernization, as well as past governmental policies of removal, relocation, and termination of native populations.

Today’s technology is such that you can easily record information and make long-distance contact with others, so it seems as if it should be easy to record, preserve, and make available native language information. However, there are a number of other concerns which must be balanced with the urge to preserve language through recordings, primarily issues around ownership and access. Language is closely tied to culture; even if tribal members don’t use their language day-to-day, they probably use in their ceremonies. Language and ceremonies may only be shared with certain people: sometimes with all members of the tribe, other times with only a select few. There may be people who are protectors of knowledge, language or otherwise. It’s important to make sure that programs created to record and preserve languages are sensitive to these issues.

Another issue to be considered is misappropriation or exploitation of this information. Indeed, some tribal elders have chosen to not share their knowledge with non-tribal members; by recording it, the chance that an outsider will access the information increases. Not recording such information allows tribal members to retain control over their cultural information. Another way to maintain control is to closely involve tribal members and elders in the design and creation of preservation programs. As more Natives become involved in the work to preserve their languages, they inform the protocols and practices used to collect and make available information. Whether a tribe decides to record and preserve language or to continue to share it only with tribal members orally, their positions must be respected.

Language learning on the telephone

With this in mind, she announces a new application for a mobile phone system that will teach the language of the Cherokee Nation, originally from the southeastern part of the United States but in the 1830s forcibly removed by the US government to the center of the country.

…The application includes flashcards, recordings, and games for language learning, and there is also a version for the Nintendo DS. The idea of using popular technology to help preserve and revitalize languages is exciting, because it makes language information available to all tribal members, not just those who live near tribal lands, and in a way that can be easily integrated into their lives.

…The use of technology, such as the Cherokee language iPhone application, can help dispersed tribal members to learn their tribe’s language. Software can be used to create multimedia teaching materials for lessons, while web conferencing technology can be used for teaching and for oral practice with other speakers. However, such programs must be sensitive to the issues of control and access by closely involving tribal members and elders, and respecting their wishes.

According to an article in Australian newspaper, The Age, Grace Gichuhi, 22, and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi, 21, arrived in Australia in July last year on tourist visas for World Youth Day.

There have been few reactions to the case from most of the political blogosphere regulars in Australia. Climate change and economic stimulus strategies have dominated in the last week.

But the article on The Age has attracted 54 comments from online readers showing anything but popular disinterest. The comments represent opposite poles of opinion, including:

Let these women stay.

Ben | Adelaide - September 22, 2009, 9:30AM

They applied. Their applications were assessed. Their applications were refused.
Send them home.
Case closed.

David_T - September 22, 2009, 9:34AM

How pathetic that these two women should be refused asylum. Australia could do well to have more people like these two girls and as far as I'm concerned they're welcome here for as long as they wish.

jollysroger | Townsville - September 22, 2009, 10:22AM

On her blog, at Pocket Carnival, Penny Eager says she was moved to write to the Minister for Immigration & Citizenship, Chris Evans on his online contact page, expressing her outrage:

I have just heard of the case of Grace Gichuhi & Teresia Ndikaru Muturi, two women from Kenya who have been denied status as refugees.

I believe that the torturous practise of genital mutilation is abhorrent, and that to deny these women refugee visas is to take a weak stance on this issue.

I urge you to intervene in this case, not only to help these women, but also to send a clear message to Kenya that Australia does not condone these practises.

A religious issue?

Aussie News and Views a self-styled “American, Australian, Israeli, British ‘Judeo-Christian Friendly' blog” posted a video of a news clip about the women and asked:

Gee I wonder who could be behind this? what sort of Satan worshipping Death Cult could be alive and well in Kenya today that would do such a thing to young women?

Philip Maguire at Whaddya Reckon? drew a number of comments with his post:

TWO Kenyan Christian women are to be deported from Australia despite facing death or genital mutilation.

Maybe they should have arrived here cashed up via a boat from Indonesia.

Lisa Valentine of Embrace Australia, an online community for foreign nationals looking to live in Australia, also took up their case:

Both Grace and Teresia are now terrified of what fate will lie in wait for them if they are deported back to Kenya.

A spokesman from the Australian Immigration Department said: “Under the refugee convention, they weren’t found to engage with Australia’s international obligations.

The girls, along with Sister Aileen Crowe, a Franciscan nun who is supporting them, launched an appeal to the Australian Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, but he rejected that appeal. A second appeal has now been launched and the girls are awaiting the results but have been told to prepare for deportation.

Ironically new legislation is due to be introduced to Parliament that would ensure protection for the girls. The legislation is called Complementary Protection and it expands the criteria under which a refugee can apply for protection.

Online campaign

On Facebook a ‘Causes' page titled Help save these Women from Genital Mutilation has been launched by Australians who support the women's attempt to stay in Australia. So far, 91 people have joined. An update was posted on Tuesday by Vanessa Muradian:

This is the most recent update - sources said these women are protected here in Australia — until Evans decides what to do with them. Whether he rejected them or not the first time we are still to know… the government need to pass the complimentary visa… which I am further researching at the moment - Basically the complimentary visa, will ‘compliment' the protection visa, SO THAT THESE refugees can fall under a protection visa. CURRENTLY the protection visa doesn't protect women from GENITAL MUTILATION and honour killings. The bill was proposed to parliament in September and currently the Liberal party are opposing this bill…

Right now these women just need our support - Minister Evans will be making the decision with his privilege of Ministerial Intervention.

I guess we need to contact him…

As well as other governing bodies whom can help the government pass the complimentary bill!!!!!!!

Bloggers in Fiji and around the Pacific are debating a recent Amnesty International report chronicling the island nation’s human rights record since the country’s president abrogated the constitution April 10.

The report, titled Fiji: Paradise Lost, contends that since the constitution was nullified, Fiji’s military government has limited freedom of expression, movement, assembly, the right to a fair trial and the freedom of arbitrary detention. Also, the government has briefly imprisoned up to 40 people, including lawyers, opposition politicians, high-ranking members of the Methodist church and 20 journalists. The report tallies alleged arrests and other violations through July.

The head of Fiji’s military, Frank Bainimarama, came to power in a December 2006 coup, dissolving parliament and the government of Laisenia Qarase. On April 9, 2009 three judges ruled in a case brought by Qarase that the takeover was illegal. The judges demanded Bainimarama step down, and asked Fiji’s president to appoint a caretaker government to move the country to elections. On April 10, the country’s president claimed he had no power to appoint a new government; instead, he nullified Fiji’s 1997 constitution, fired the entire judiciary and appointed Bainimarama to a five-year term, scheduling elections in 2014.

One of Bainimarama’s first tasks was to promulgate a series of 30-day renewable Public Emergency Regulations, called PER, for “maintaining public safety,” granting the government the authority to, among other things, impose curfews, restrict movement and the ability to detain people for up to seven days without charges. In July, the government said it would extend the PER through December 2009. Amnesty International calls on the government to immediately repeal these rules.

From the report:

The ongoing harassement and arbitrary detention of journalists, lawyers, clergy and government critics by the authorities under the guise of the PER is a tactic used to suppress freedom of expression, including any form of dissent.

The report saves special criticism for the restriction of the country’s press. The rights group points out that extra-constitutional PERs allow the government to revoke the license of any media organ printing negative stories; the government also granted itself power to place censors in newsrooms around the country.

The report also claims the government holds undue influence over the country’s judiciary.

Fiji’s government says the report provides very little proof of alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by the country’s military.

In a comment at the Soli Vakasama blog, Tui argues it is good that someone has begun chronicling the alleged abuses by the Bainiarama regime.

THe entry of Amnesty Interrnational into the foray of Fiji Politics must be very disheartnening to the Illegal Regime.Now they will have to answer to somebody for their total disregard of human and civil rights in Fiji.They have to explain why they are only allowing one side of the story to be told.With the entry of Amnesty International into the mix the illegal regime must explain the abuse of women, the torture of civillians and even their murder.
Isn’t it strange that the regimes first line of defence as stated by the uneducated PS for Info is that people must come with evidence of the abuse. I wonder which planet Leweni is talking from because we know that PER is still in force in Fiji and that is proof enough of abuse of anykind.I am so glad that this is happening in Fiji because soon some heads will begin to roll and it will not be the peoples but that of the illegal regime and its mastermind Bainimarama.

No Right Turn, a blog from New Zealand, calls the report – which also exposes alleged abuses from the December 2006 coup – “unpleasant reading.”

While the Fijian regime are clearly amateurs at oppression, they have successfully created a climate of fear, with people intimidated by “Gestapo tactics”, including threats, arrests, arbitrary detentions, travel bans, and even attacks on homes. According to Amnesty, over a thousand people have been dragged off by the military to their barracks, where they have been beaten, forced to perform military drills, stripped, and sexually abused. At least one person has died as a result of this mistreatment, but despite being tried and convicted, his killers have been released on orders from the regime. The media is subject to censorship and can report only “good news” about the regime and international events. The judiciary has been corrupted and turned into a tool of the regime, and the rule of law no longer exists. Instead, everything is down to the arbitrary whim of those in power.

This isn't happening in some far-off place like China or Zimbabwe - its happening right on our doorstep, in one of the largest countries in the Pacific. And there seems to be very little we can do to stop it.

Bainiarama justified his actions in December 2006 claiming the former government was corrupt and former Prime Minister Qarase ruled solely for the benefit of the indigenous Fijian population at the expense of Indo-Fijians, descendants of indentured servants brought to the islands about a century ago by British colonial rulers. Indigineous Fijians presently make up just below 60 percent of the population while Indo-Fijians represent roughly 37 percent.

Fiji: The Way It Was, Is and Can Be argues this historical context is not found in Amnesty International’s report.

As for the report itself, I can only say I'm deeply disappointed with Amnesty International, an organization that over the years I have admired and financially supported. Its title tells all: Fiji: Paradise Lost: A Tale of Ongoing Human Rights Violations April - July 2009. Its researcher and author is ethnic Fijian Apolosi Bose. Its methodology involved 80 interviews with journalists, lawyers and others, all hostile to the Interim Government, based largely on Bose's visit to Fiji from 4-18 April, and 2008-2009 inputs from “activists in Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne and London. ” The Fiji April visit overlapped the Abrogation of the 1997 Constitution and the introduction of the Public Emergency Regulations. Other than the period immediately following the coup, this was the most troubled period in the past six years…

There have been human rights abuses in Fiji, and not all of them have been properly addressed by the Government. There have also been abuses of office by opponents of the Government. These things happen in post-coup situations. All such happenings need to be place in context, weighed and balanced; compared with earlier (pre-coup) abuses; and considered within a future context: where is Fiji now, and how may we help it to move towards a better future? The Amnesty International investigation does none of these things. It is a report by and about “activists” aimed at an international audience, and it will be used by them to further isolate Fiji to no useful purpose.

Two bloggers from outside Fiji debate the veracity and importance of recent media reports on the purported human rights violations by Fiji’s government.

The QBrand QBlog, from Australia, wonders why people in that country get worked up about problems in Burma, but ignore purported violations in Fiji.

It's getting harder and harder to understand the attitudes of many Australians to our island neighbour Fiji. Despite clear evidence of the repressive nature of the Bainimarama regime, most of the talk I hear about Fiji is about how cheap the airfares are and which resort is the best.

From a branding perspective, what are the forces that perpetuate our view of Fiji as a sleepy, friendly tropical paradise when we get worked up about human rights in Burma and Zimbabwe, or about media censorship in China?

Is it just proximity? Or is it that so many Australians and Australian enterprises with commercial interests in Fiji are willing to be apologists for Bainimarama and his military government?

Café Pacific, from a New Zealand-based journalist and academic, criticizes Pacific media for concentrating on abuses in Fiji while ignoring decades of human rights violations in East Timor.

THE HYPOCRISY reeks. While Australia, NZ and the media went through the usual bleating about Fiji human rights violations, they remained silent about the ongoing struggle to gain justice for those Timorese who have suffered horrendous human rights violations for more than four decades. Alleged human rights violations in Fiji are a soft target - the tough target, the top Indonesian military commanders who have blood on their hands for their colonial adventure in East Timor, remain free with inpunity. Timor-Leste's Truth Commission appeals for an international tribunal and a “commission for disappeared persons” still remain an unlikely dream.

[Note to copy editors, line editors, journalists, NGOs and news organizations: The terms “paradise lost,” “trouble in paradise,” and other related expressions are now forbidden in future reports on Fiji. Utilizing this long-suffering analogy now constitutes a human rights violation.]

On 30 August, 1999, hundreds of thousands of Timorese voters braved an Indonesian-directed terror campaign to cast ballots for independence in a U.N.-organized referendum. This event, which ended Indonesia’s 24-year illegal, brutal military occupation, led to the creation of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste as the first new nation of the millennium. The vote was the culmination of decades of struggle by Timorese people, supported by solidarity activists around the world.

The release of journalist Max Stahl's video recording of the outrageous Massacre de Santa Cruz in 1991 increased global awareness about the crimes occurring in East Timor under the Indonesian occupation.

In 1996 Jose Ramos-Horta and Bishop Ximenes Belo were awarded the Peace Nobel Prize and only three years later Indonesian President Habibie allowed the people of East Timor to choose between autonomy within Indonesia and independence. And the world united along with East Timor.

"Die-in" protest in the US. Credit: www.etan.org

Solidarity movements able to pressure their governments and protest Indonesian abuses sprung up in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Portugal, France, Holland, Ireland, Germany, the UK, Canada and the US during the 1990s. Even within Indonesia, East Timorese had friends working to stop abuses and promote self-determination.

In the summer of 1999, in the lead up to the Referendum, the International Federation for East Timor assembled the Observer Project, an international team of members from at least 22 countries to go to Timor and monitor the vote. The security arrangements for the months preceding the referendum were shaky, as the UN-brokered agreement for the Referendum left security to the Indonesian police.

UN poster that reads "We will not leave" credit to Australia Timor-Leste Friendship Network

IFET monitors bravely fanned out across the territory, a project report from August 22, 1999 explains

We have rented houses and deployed teams in every area of East Timor. Upon arriving in a town, an IFET-OP team first makes contact with the police and local authorities, and then with various community leaders and advocates on both sides of the campaign. They settle into a house which an IFET-OP advance team has arranged, and begin observing and inquiring about events and perceptions related to the campaign and other aspects of the consultation. Each team reports in nightly by phone and files a written weekly report. Although nobody on any of our teams has been injured, several have witnessed violent or intimidating incidents, and have reported such events to the appropriate authorities, UNAMET, and IFET-OP headquarters in Dili.

The IFET observers reported the violence that engulfed East Timor after the vote, which it turned out, was overwhelmingly for independence from Indonesia. The IFET Observer Project reported on September 3

The observers, members of the International Federation for East Timor Observer Project (IFET-OP), traveled to the Becora neighborhood of Dili to investigate reports of militia burning houses in the area yesterday. When they arrived, they found a house newly ablaze, and with both firefighters and journalists at the scene, the IFET-OP team went to investigate. Ten minutes after the observers arrived, the Indonesian military-backed militia showed up at the house.

The Aitarak (Thorn) militia struck one U.S. IFET-OP member in the face. Another team member, a woman from Finland, was hit in the back by a militia holding a gun. Yet another Finnish team member was threatened at gunpoint. The militia members also punched the IFET-OP driver and smashed a window on his car.

With militia violence kicking off again almost immediately after the vote, solidarity groups around the world began to demand their governments pay attention to the worsening situation in East Timor. The following video, from Jose Budha, portrays how Portugal stood up and stopped in that period:

[Subtitles] The images of a country standing for 3 minutes in solidarity with a distant people ran the world, as did the aerial view of a 10 kilometers human chain. Thousands ended up heading towards Madrid, so that they could shout loudly their rebellion against the Indonesian Embassy. Indonesia eventually accepted the entry of an international force in East Timor. The UN took another week to send this force. We do not know how many people died. Out of the 18 accused in Indonesia of involvement in the events of 99, only 1 was convicted and the others were acquitted in different instances. There is a certainty that in the future, when necessary, there are millions of voices ready to scream, reaching as far as 14,000 kilometers away, to Timor Lorosa'e.

After the results were out in the 4th of September numerous atrocities, killings and devastation happened as TAPOL reported in 1999:

After the referendum results were announced on 4 September, the militias and their Kopassus bosses unleashed a scorched-earth policy of gigantic proportions. Para-military forces joined the fray, along with six TNI battalions, including two notorious local battalions, 744 and 745. Altogether about 15,000 men were involved. Without such a large contingent of men, it could never have taken hold so rapidly.

Although [Operation] Sapu Jagad-II sought to create the impression that this was a spontaneous outpouring of anger by pro-Indonesia forces, there is overwhelming evidence that the destruction was a well-prepared military operation. In many places, villagers were forced to destroy and burn their own neighbourhoods, even their own houses. The aim was to destroy as much as possible and punish the pillars of the pro-independence movement. The Catholic Church, which had given sanctuary to fleeing East Timorese throughout the occupation, was one of the main targets.

Photo from "Genocide Watch: East Timor 1975-1999", researched and written by Adam Jones. Shared under a license for non-profit use.

All IFET OP volunteers were forced to leave Dili by September 7, 1999 under extremely harrowing circumstances

Today, September 7, the last of our observers was forced to leave East Timor. Over the past two days, the Royal Australian Air Force evacuated 60 of our nonpartisan volunteers to Darwin from Dili and Baucau.

We left East Timor for safety, but with tremendous sadness. The East Timorese people have no Australia to run to, no place to hide from militia terror. Last night, Australia and Indonesian military officers prevented one of our East Timorese staff members from boarding the plane with us — and he faces an unspeakable horror shared by hundreds of thousands of his fellow East Timorese.

Most international observers and media fled East Timor before IFET-OP had to leave, and we were the last international NGO to leave. UNAMET has withdrawn from the entire country except Dili, where their communications and electricity has been cut off, and they are surrounded by militias who shoot into their compound virtually without interruption.

The mentioned “world pressure” became more and more real as citizens did not resign. Some photos of solidarity ties in Portugal may be seen in Tane Timor website. Maremargo posted images from Spain. Antonio Jose, from Uma Lulik blog, illustrated and emotionally described what was happening in Lisbon in a never before seen solidarity during the 7th and the 8th [pt] of September 1999:

As sirenes dos bombeiros ouviram-se ininterruptas nesses 3 minutos… parámos por Timor-Leste como nunca parámos por mais nada… TODOS (…)
Durante toda a tarde do cimo daquele prédio foram lançados constantemente papeis e papelinhos, rolos de papel higiénico, tudo o que vinha à mão era material para protesto. No final da tarde percebe-se que esse stock acabou pois eram as páginas amarelas que fluíam nessa altura… aquele ventinho sempre a ajudar e a depositar os protestos em plena embaixada dos EUA, nas árvores, no seu jardim e envolventes. No topo do prédio viam-se gente de gravata e camisa, a causa era a mesma…

"Civil non-obedience for Timor Loro Sa'e" in front of the US Embassy in Lisbon, Portugal, September 1999. Photo by Flickr user nopasaran, used with permission.

While the East Timor Action Network put people on the streets in September 1999, it was also able to count on the phone calls and letters of over ten thousand Americans

ETAN grew during 1999, enlarging our membership from 8,500 to 11,700. […] Using our experience and national activist network developed through eight years of dedication to a cause many called hopeless, ETAN mobilized public and official pressure. […] In September, ETAN’s web site was visited by more than 40,000 people a week. […] During September, our most active staff and volunteers were featured or quoted in countless mainstream media articles and programs, reaching tens of millions. ETAN activists authored op-eds in major U.S. newspaper, wrote letters to the editor, and appeared on local and national radio and TV shows.

On the other side of the world, the decisive moment for international intervention happened on the eve of the APEC summit in New Zealand, when Bill Clinton privately met with Pacific leaders. Only days prior he had announced the suspension of US military training with Indonesia. According to blogger Nigel Morley of “Writing for the Future“

To some readers this may seem fanciful but when Timorese Nobel Peace Prize winner José Ramos-Horta met United States (U.S.) President Bill Clinton at the APEC meeting in New Zealand in 1999, Clinton remarked that Ramos-Horta had more influence with Congress than he did (Zubrycki: 2002).

New Zealanders turned out in numbers to welcome Clinton, Ramos Horta and Australian Prime Minister Howard. Australians also “Take To The Streets Over East Timor”:

From Sidney, Australia, "Mother & Child" photo by Flickr user Potsy, used with permission

Banners saying “Stop The Slaughter” and “Wiranto - Murder.” Chants of “Free East Timor” and “Viva Timor Leste” (long live East Timor) came from the crowd after it heard from East Timorese resistance leader Mr Jose “Xanana” Gusmão during a live telephone hook-up from Jakarta.

“We need you, brothers and sisters of Australia, we need your voice,” Xanana Gusmao in Jakarta said by telephone, “I think it is important to send a message to the Indonesian Government that the Australian community and Australian workers will do everything they can to stop the killings. Viva East Timor,” he said. “Viva,” the crowd yelled back.

Students from Kingsgrove High School pledge their support for a free Timor in 1999. Photo by Flickr user sHzaam!, used with permission

During the torturous days of September 1999, world leaders moved slowly to intervene in East Timor, when it was clear that the Indonesian military and its proxies were completely destroying the territory, and setting off a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions. But the decisive protest and advocacy of groups of concerned citizens across the world shamed the US, Australia, and Indonesia into turning a new page for East Timor.

A decade later, it is time to celebrate that global union. Several events are scheduled in Dili, such as a photo exhibition in Fundação Oriente (which was itself the place where a massacre occurred in 1999) describing solidarity movements over the years.

This is the first in a series of posts to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the popular referendum in East Timor, a vote which led to the territory's internationally recognized independence. If you would like to share memories from the acts of global solidarity for East Timor in 1999, please do so below.

Syrian blogger Anas Qtiesh criticizes Levey's proposal, focusing on Levey's statements that Israel should be the top priority of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East:

So Mr. Levey suggests that the U.S. needs to acquire Israeli trust in order to stop the illegal settlements, illegal Judaization of Jerusalem, and to have Israeli permission to have talks with Iran. The absurdity of his suggestion is only matched by a fact he mentions to justify his outrageous suggestion: “In the history of U.S.-Israel relations, probably no president has earned adoration and unequivocal trust from Israel like Bush.”

Australian blogger and journalist Antony Loewenstein also wonders why the Arabs aren't considered in Levey's piece, remarking:

A former worker in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, Gregory Levey, suggests that the Obama administration appoint George W. Bush as his Middle East envoy to pressure and cajole Israel.

Clearly Levey has never spoken to any Arabs in the Middle East; Bush isn’t the most liked individual.

Blogger Max Strasser of Next Year In, a blog which focuses on the Middle East, is more amused by the implication that Israelis love George W. Bush, despite his low approval ratings elsewhere:

Oy.  That’s just a little embarrassing for the Israelis.  Bush ended his term as one of the least popular presidents in American history.  He is despised around the world.  And still Israelis love him?  That makes Israel sound like some sort of “rogue” state.  I hope that it doesn’t bespeak anything too significant about the direction of Israeli politics.

Pseudonymous blogger Doctor Biobrain, whose location is as mysterious as his pseudonym, questions why U.S. support for Israel must always go unquestioned:

Would someone care to explain to me why we need to make Israel happy? I don't even buy into the idea that having them in the middle-east is some great strategic advantage for us, and think it's the exact opposite. Israel is one of the biggest problems we have in the middle-east. That's not to say I don't support their existence or anything, merely that I fail to understand their strategic importance to us or why we need to keep appeasing them. As with our embargo of Cuba, I believe our support of Israel is more about domestic politics than foreign policy and anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.

But if their existence is somehow important to us, you'd think their existence would be even more important to themselves. And if our support of them makes their existence possible, then you'd think they'd owe it to us to keep us happy, not vice versa. And if our support isn't necessary for their existence and they're doing us a favor by accepting our support, then perhaps we should stop supporting them. That seems fairly obvious to me.

Though it was nearly impossible to find a blogger writing in support of Levey's piece, Jason Zengerle, blogging for The New Republic, sees it as a metaphor of sorts, but criticizes Bush nonetheless, stating:

I guess it's to encourage Obama to be more Bush-like in his dealings with Israel. One Bush-like gesture, according to Levey, would be for Obama “to speak directly to Israelis, the way Bush did often.” But did Bush speak directly to Israelis that often? He didn't visit Israel as president until January 2008, some seven years after he entered the White House. And he made only one more trip there, in May of last year, to speak to the Knesset (and take some thinly veiled swipes at Obama). Obama, of course, has been president for six months now. I'm with Levey (and pretty much everyone else it seems) in thinking Obama should speak directly to Israelis. But I don't think he'll necessarily be following Bush's example if and when he does.

There were also a plethora of blog posts which took a more humorous tone. While David Pleasant blogged…

Good Lord. Gregory Levey, in a Newsweek article, is proposing that President Obama make George W. Bush his special envoy to the Middle East. Um, the only place I propose the federal government send Mr. Bush to is the SuperMax Prison in Florence, CO.

…While Matthew Saroff of 40 Years in the Desert snarks…

In related news, he suggested that Hannibal Lecter as chairman of the special White House committee on nutrition, Mary “Typhoid Mary” Mallon as head of food safety at the FCC, Timothy Leary as Drug Czar, and South Carolina Governor Rick “Hiking the Appalachian Trail” Sanford as head of the special working committee for ethics in government.

…and Oliver Willis (U.S.) jokes:

In related news, Godzilla has been appointed to the task force to rebuild Tokyo.

Most recently, French President Nicholas Sarkozy proposed a ban on the burqa. His proposal follows a 2004 French law banning hijab from schools.

Bloggers around the world across the spectrum of belief have been speaking out about Sarkozy's decision. At KABOBfest, Canadian Sana writes:

By targeting how a small number of French women choose to assert and represent their sexuality, France is missing the real sources of the problem as well as implying that its foundation is perhaps far less stable than what it would like the world and its own citizenry to think. It is now time for France not to shed the various components of its identity, but rather to approach those very pieces with a broader outlook. Its minority population has been willing to adapt for decades, but can France accept minimal equity as a basis for greater equality as we have done so here in North America?

The blogger concludes with:

Mr. Sarkozy, your efforts may be sincere; you are, after all, only trying to protect the criteria for what makes one“French” enough. Remember, however, that in your attempt to free woman from her draping chains, you restrict her sexuality, her own sense of her individualism and her being to the confines of your harem by dictating the dance she must do and the garments she must wear to please you.

Algerian-American blogger The Moor Next Door echoes a similar sentiment. Arguing that Sarkozy's proposal is “bigotry dressed as gallantry,” he states:

The trouble the French may want to worry about is not the burqa as it is worn in France today, but that such a ban, as the headscarf ban has done, will make the garment a greater symbol of Muslim identity and sign of cultural defiance. France has done a good job at finding ways of alienating racial and religious minorities. Indeed, among Western nations it is a leader in this field. This is a quality that does little to further the assimilationist cause the French so actively pursue, though. The proposition comes with other baggage, too. The concern (posed by the Economist piece) that this proposed ban would be might be “misunderstood abroad,” seems foolish. What is to be misunderstood? It is precisely an effort to limit the expression of religion, Islam especially in this case, and follows from the same motivations as the earlier headscarf ban.

Farah, writing for the group blog Nuseiba, presents an excellent roundup of Australian opinions on the matter, noting:

A lot of writers (including Posetti and Hussein) against a ban point out that a number of women actively choose to wear the burqa or niqab. While the burqa has been used by groups to subjugate women, these writers highlight the need to identify the agency of these Muslim women, rather than denying them that agency which a ban would do.

Faith-based blogger Tracy Simmons, from the United States, sees the issue as a simple one. Asking Sarkozy not to strip women of their dignity, she pleads:

I don’t think people realize that wearing the burqa is a choice for many Islam women. And because it’s a choice, they shouldn’t be forced by a government NOT to wear it.

Of course, not all bloggers are opposed to Sarkozy's ban. Popular Egyptian blogger and columnist Mona Eltahawy, who famously took off her own headscarf a few years ago (an experience which she has written about on her blog) wrote an op-ed for The New York Times in which she stated that, as a woman and a Muslim, she was opposed to the burqa being worn anywhere.

One U.S.-based blogger, Anne of Carversville, expresses her support for Eltahawy by saying:

I’m sensitive to the delicate nature of change in politics, but I have not lived my life to hear in 2009 that I’m offbase, because I believe that burqas debase women, erasing them from society as Eltahawy argues.

In formalizing my position against burqas, I am in no way affronted by the more conservative form of dress chosen by many Muslim women. I am not opposed to head coverings of any kind.

More broadly, the blogger adds:

At the same time, I support and advocate the embracing of life’s sensuality — seeing, hearing, smelling and using all our sensitivity to experience life. This view does not put me in opposition to Muslim culture, which also embraces the deeply sensual nature of life.

I will also accept burqas for women when men are equally compelled to wear them. For both genders to embrace burqas as a sign of respect for their religion (which does not require them in the Koran), then I agree that burqas are a sign of Muslim culture and religious custom.

Eltahawy's column was not without opposition from the blogosphere, however. Sahar, writing for Nuseiba, protests:

…the best way to support Muslim women is to respect their choice in how they express their religion and culture. It is not to impose what we think is good for them. I find it ironic that Eltahawy who claims to be a feminist is ignoring the importance of choice, agency and the lived experiences of these women— which are essential factors in understanding women in feminist analysis.

Nor do we all agree with Eltahawy who, perhaps due to her socially privileged position is detached from the social, political and religious motivations for wearing burqa, and can’t comprehend how it can be a vehicle of success for some or a proud reinforcement of Muslim identity for others. The burqa can be understood as a symbol of the outrage Muslims are feeling as they are exposed to an increasingly xenophobic Europe. It’s symbolic of an attempt to cling on to an identity that is being eroded in a hostile environment. I write this piece now after just reading about an Egyptian woman who was stabbed in a German court 18 times by the man she was suing for harassing her for wearing a headscarf. It is not the burqa alone that is being undermined and discredited but Islamic dress entirely. Therefore, the call to remove the burqa cannot be devoid of such a context and for Eltahawy to think that divorcing her criticism from such a context as viable is politically naïve.

Though it remains to be seen whether or not France will implement a ban on the burqa, one thing is certain: this is a very polarizing topic around the world.

Specialist social network sites in Australia reacted soon after the news broke.

Overlander 4WD Magazine hosts a forum on its online website. D200 dug gave a personal view:

Our eldest son was in Jakarta this morning and had planned to attend a breakfast meeting at one of the bombed hotels. So this is pretty close to home for me. I traveled through Indonesia in the 1970s and found Indonesians to be enormously friendly kind and hospitable. …Talking to my son today he confirmed that the general population of Indonesians have not changed, they remain incredibly friendly welcoming and hospitable.
Jakarta Bombings Forum

TrevG at RealSurfers Forum was less than hopeful:

I sometimes wonder how far they can push it before “normal” humans feel that “offence” is the best form of defence.
Sort of like “do unto others, before they do it to you”
Not advocating it, personally but I do despair for the future of the world at times.
Bombings in Jakarta

Peter Martin is economics correspondent for two major daily newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. His initial reaction was one of outrage. He quoted a very strong reaction to the 2005 London bombings :

I was angry when I arrived at work to be told the news. Really, really angry.

It put me in mind of this , written on the website of the London News Review hours after the 2005 London subway attacks. (Apologies for the language - it's necessary)
The Indonesia bombings were really, really stupid

Duncan Graham, a Perth journalist who blogs at Indonesia Now , gave a measured analysis at On Line Opinion. He looked at Indonesian responses:

SBY’s instant and unequivocal response does indicate a welcome rejection of past equivocation. That included tolerating outlandish theories to brush away the idea of homegrown Islamic terrorism.

and concluded:

Most Indonesians are tolerant pluralists, genuinely friendly, proud of their country, and keen to meet and help visitors. Proportionally there are probably no more fanatics in Indonesia than Australia but the chance of meeting one ready to do serious harm is rare - there and here.
Jakarta bombings: bad things and evil people

Regular political blogger Duckpond explored the motives of the bombers:

Clearly, by targeting international hotels they were intending to harm international visitors, and it is not surprising that Australians and New Zealanders have been killed and injured. In that sense, it is personal. The people responsible for the bombing must feel that we have caused them harm. I just wish they would tell us what their grievances are rather than take such an extreme action.

It will probably turn out those who have organized this horrific action against their fellow human beings will claim to be strongly religious. As far as I know Islam teaches compassion and peace, and right conduct in the pursuit of war.

After quoting an Al Jazeera report, he suggested other reasons behind the bombings and raised questions of morality on both sides of the terror war:

Thus it would seem that the attack is an act of vengeance with a view to damage the Indonesian economy following the successful presidential election. Seen in this light, the bombing would appear to be “criminal” without any religious or social justification. I note that using drones to attack and kill civilians is similarly “criminal”.
JAKARTA BOMBING