Dr. Uttam Das working for reform of legal education

Dr. Uttam Kumar Das, a Human Rights Lawyer in Bangladesh has been working for reform of legal education.

He was a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow in the year 2009-2010 and was affiliated with the University of Minnesota Law School and Human Rights Center in Minneapolis, U.S.A.

His focus was on "Laws and Policies Related to Labor Trafficking in the United States of America." As part of the Fellowship, Dr. Das volunteered for the Refugee and Immigrant Program at the Advocates for Human Rights, an international human rights organization in Minneapolis.

Dr. Das is admitted as an Advocate (Attorney) in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and is providing pro bono legal advice to promote rights of migrants, refugees and victims of human trafficking. He also lectures regularly on human rights issues at law schools in Dhaka.

He has organized two regional seminars in Dhaka on “Ethics in Legal Profession" and "Legal Education in South Asia," respectively on January 15 and January 16, 2011 under the banner of the South Asian Institute of Advanced Legal and Human Rights Studies (SAILS). Dr. Das is now working as the Deputy Director at SAILS.

The seminars brought together the Law Minister, Chairpersons of National Human Rights Commission and Law Commission of Bangladesh, policy makers from Bar Council and renowned jurists and legal academics among others from Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Major newspapers in Bangladesh gave significant coverage of the programs; link of a relevant report: http://www.thedailystar.net/law/2011/01/04/event.htm

"The aged-old legal education in Bangladesh needs drastic reform and standardization to meet the need of the time," says Dr. Das.

According to him, "legal education should be human-centric and practical which could be able to contribute to pro-people justice system." He is also advocating for incorporating human rights issues in legal curriculum, and contributing to national newspapers on the issue.

He has been liaising with the legal academics, law schools, Bar Council, Law Commission and National Human Rights Commission for the reform.

Dr. Das is a visiting faculty to the Kathmandu School of Law in Nepal. He runs a blog as well; link: http://udas1971.blogspot.com.

He has been invited to present key note papers at symposiums in the capital recently organized by the largest NGO, BRAC and migrant rights organization, WARBE Development Foundation.

Dr. Das was part of a three-member technical team commissioned by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in 2010 to draft a comprehensive law on human trafficking. The draft law is now under the review of the relevant ministries. The Government of Bangladesh is likely to adopt the law soon as an Act endorsed by the National Parliament.

He formally worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM).

Dr. Das got his Doctor of Philosophy from the Institute of Bangladesh Studies (IBS) at the University of Rajshahi in Bangladesh. He is now scheduled to get his second LL.M. (Master of Law) with concentration in International Human Rights Law from the University of Minnesota Law School.

Opinion: Preventing human trafficking vs. promoting safe migration

By DR. UTTAM KUMAR DAS

What is more important for Bangladesh- preventing human trafficking or promoting safe migration?
To me, both deserve equal attention and appropriate interventions by the government and all concerned.
It is evident that neglecting one could instigate another and vise versa.
However, what do we see to happen? Especially, in Bangladesh, there is disproportionately more attention and emphasis on activities focusing on trafficking.
Human trafficking or Trafficking in Persons (TIP) is considered as a modern form of slavery. It turned to a global concern given its multi-dimension- criminal, legal, human rights, health, and moral aspects among others. There is political dimension as well.
There is a general believe that trafficking is contributed by the much known “demand and supply factors.” It has other sides as well.
No country is immune from this vise. Even, the United States, which is “monitoring performances of other States” with regard to prevention, prosecution, and protection of the victims, is not free from this. It is affected by trafficking crimes domestically and at cross-border levels.
Sex and labour trafficking is a huge problem there, as I understood during my recent stay in the country for a year. NGOs there are very much critical of government’s policies and actions.
Trafficking is not only driven by “demand and supply factors.” There are other reasons also: it is now widely acknowledged that human trafficking is an outcome of discriminatory global economic order and disproportionate sharing of wealth, and bad governance and lack of rule of law in a given country.
No other person, but the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh, Dr. Mizanur Rahman who himself is a Professor of International Law believes so; and mentioned this strongly in recent conversations with me.
According to him: “Trafficking or similar other phenomenons are outcome of the discriminatory global economic order.” Under the so-called globalization process, capitals are moving across borders; however, human beings are not allowed for the same, as he pointed out.
Also, the so-called counter-terrorism moves in response to 9/11 have prompted to make the border control stringent. That is why people now have more barriers to go out of his or her own countries and enter into desired ones for economic or other reasons.
Even, the asylum seekers and refugees fleeing from persecution have to face restrictions and barriers to move, which are in contradictions to set norms of international human rights regimes.
That is why people become desperate and look for an alternative to move from one place to another in clandestine ways, even paying enough to and relying on human smugglers and thus fall in the trap of traffickers. The intended movers have no other options but to fall in those traps.
Even developed countries allegedly don’t issue visa against the number of migrant workers they need for keeping their industry and economy operative in a given year. This trend insists people to find alternative ways; even sometime, risking own life.
Thus, in the migration process, some become victims of trafficking. However, we need to understand the abuses and exploitations in the migration processes and becoming victims of trafficking are not the same. Both might have cross-cutting elements, however, motives behind, purpose, mode, technique, and consequences are very different for the two.
Bangladesh is considered as a source country for human trafficking. Especially, trafficking of young girls, women and children are reported to be at a serious form. At the latest, human trafficking in the form of offering overseas jobs are becoming concerns. However, we don’t have any reliable statistics in this regard. The figure cited by NGOs, sometime, contradicts one another.
Poverty, over population, lack of livelihood options, illiteracy, lack of awareness, social discrimination, corruption, lack of rule of law and access to justice etc among others are considered as contributing factors to human trafficking.
However, is incidents of trafficking outnumber other forms of human rights violations in Bangladesh? It is the time to reflect on this.
I am not to diminish the seriousness of violations of human rights through trafficking. However, my point is whether we are paying more attention to the issue undermining other contemporary problems. What about child and bonded labour within the country, forced prostitution, violence against (garment) workers, hunger and poverty?
It is the fact that the “seriousness of human trafficking” brought to the forefront mostly by NGOs here (like other regions). However, it was not without a reason. There had been a connection between the flows of funding from the donor agencies-mainly the western ones and NGO initiatives.
For a decade or so, the developed countries have reportedly been investing to “anti-trafficking” initiatives as a mean to achieve goals for their broader border control strategies. Those aim so that people have been barred even to reach to their respective borders.
This could heavily contribute to impose restriction on people’s movement, mainly from developing countries like ours towards developed ones. That is why number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in developing and under-developed countries is increasing while number of asylum seekers or refugees in developed countries decreased. Why this contradiction?
Developed countries now reportedly have to spend comparatively less for activities linked to processing asylum applications, detaining, maintaining or deporting “illegal immigrants among others,” since less people now could reach their territories.
As in the asylum system, developed countries have already introduced the so-called third country protection mechanism- meaning potential asylum seekers and refugees are barred to enter into their territory; instead they had to stay and live at detention centers for years under a so-called out-sourced mechanism in a third country having funding for allowing these activities. For example, Australia has used Nauru, and Italy used Malta for those purposes.
Coming back to Bangladesh, our government was under compulsion to act upon on trafficking issues under pressures from NGOs.
There was another reason as well- the “tier system” in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report published by the U.S. Department of State. For example, in 2010, Bangladesh is put in tier 2 watch lists, which reflected country’s inability to respond to the problem of trafficking as “expected”.
Earlier, Bangladesh was put in tier 3, which is considered as the worst performances.
In deed it is the fundamental rights for a citizen of Bangladesh, to enjoy right to life and personal liberty, equal protection of law, and to be free from exploitations (slavery) among others.
I am mentioning all these issues here, having observed the phenomenon that most of organizations earlier working in “anti-trafficking initiatives” are now moving towards “migration area;” again responding to donor’s choices and priorities.
All are free to work on an issue whatever makes them interested. However, question comes in whether someone has relevant capacity and skills for all works.
However, unfortunate point is that there is no preference to the national interest. Even, the governmental agencies are failing to respond in a right direction.
Given the context of Bangladesh, promotion of safe and regular migration deserves to get prime and outmost importance; however, it is not getting so (again there is no funding for such activities).
It is widely acknowledged that more than seven million Bangladesh-origin persons are now working or living abroad. In 2009, the country has earned US$ 10.72 billion as remittances through migration of 475,000 persons mostly as contractual labour migrants. There is a trend of 17 percent growth in remittances since 2001. The remittances are 13 percent of country’s GDP. Remittances are contributing to reduce 6 percent of poverty per annum. It (remittance) is 12 and 6 times higher respectively than the Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Bangladesh.
Though professionals from Bangladesh are going abroad with jobs, however, majority are of other categories-66 percent constitutes semi-skilled.
Given this huge contribution of migration, our successive governments are failing to respond adequately to meet the need and demand of this emerging sector- both from public and private sectors.
There are “huge activities” in respond to the human trafficking in Bangladesh. There are Inter-Ministerial Committee, Project Implementation Committee, Coordination Committees at District, Sub-districts, and union levels to coordinate “anti-trafficking activities.”
There are so-called awareness programmes up to village levels. One donor agency has reportedly spent US$ 1.7 million in three years for “technical training and raising awareness.” However, those activities did not get expected outcomes, since it has nothing to do with people’s economic or livelihood options. Also, those activities did not sustain since it was merely fund-driven.
On the contrary, what do we see in the migration sector- there are hardly such committees to promote and coordinate activities to promote safe migration from the capital to the village (except few initiatives by BRAC and others).
Even, there is likely no coordination among the activities of line ministries, i.e., Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment (MOEWOE), Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs among others.
I have been advocating for a high-powered committee under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to coordinate and streamline activities. (I am informed that at the latest there is an initiative to coordinate activities by the Principal Secretary at PMO).
In a recent workshop (on 13 December) on migration issues organized by the Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU), the issue of over emphasizing on “anti-trafficking initiatives” came in at discussion.
Human Rights Lawyer Adilur Rahman Khan rightly pointed out that Bangladesh should take a caution so that it does not stop people’s right to movement (go out of the country, which is a fundamental right) in the name of preventing so-called human trafficking.
There is empirical evidences that expanding opportunities for people’s safe and regular migration could contribute to curbing human trafficking. If someone has opportunity to migrate safely, why he/she would take risk of his/her own life. However, we hardly look into this aspect.
That is why Bangladesh needs to move its main focus from preventing human trafficking to promoting safe migration.
Definitely, government should ensure effective mechanisms to prosecute crimes of human trafficking and similar other crimes and continue activities to raise people’s awareness on this.
However, in the name of prosecution, we should not come up with bunch of new laws prescribing “heavy-handed authorities.” We should be realistic in our own context and focus on the proper implementation of existing laws- if required there should be required amendment and modification to meet the need to the time. However, emphasis should be on implementation of existing laws and regulations. For this, logistics and training for investigators, prosecutors and judges are required.
A comprehensive law does not mean to bring a set of new laws and lofty ideas which are impractical to implement in our context. We are also becoming sectoral; none is looking into the criminal justice system as a whole.
Also, there are roles to play by the government, UN agencies, and inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations: to negotiate with prospective destination countries to expand opportunities for safe and regular migration. The government should also look into the matter of expanding skill and capacity of would be migrants.

© Dr. Uttam Kumar Das. Prior permission is required to republish or quote.

The writer is an Advocate (Attorney) at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, and specializes on International Human Rights Law and Migration Issues. E-mail contact: udas1971@gmail.com.

Arizona Against Immigration*

Arizona Against Immigration

A controversial Arizona law has caused grave concern to immigrants

Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from Minneapolis, USA

The US immigration system has been an area of interest during my program here. I am taking a full-course on Immigration Law as part of my LLM (Master of Law) program this Spring Semester 2010.

The topic has dominated much of the discussions starting from the academic debates to professional conferences. Much has been in debate following the filing of an Immigration Reform Bill in the US Congress last December. However, when this law is going to be passed or implemented, no one could say.

In another development, a new legislation adopted in the southern border state of Arizona has sparked new debates.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed an immigration bill into law for the state on April 23. This is considered as the “toughest law against the illegal immigrant.”

Legal and judicial questions have also emerged whether a state could adopt such a law overruling the federal position with regard to immigration.

Though immigration is a federal matter, Arizona has challenged that principle. The Department of Justice is reportedly to challenge the legality and validity of the Arizona law.

The much debated law will take effect on July 29 unless its implementation is blocked by any legal or judicial intervention, i.e., court injunctions etc. So far, there have been three pending legal challenges already filed by a Hispanic clergy group, a police officer and another individual.

The law is likely to make it a crime if an immigrant doesn’t carry his or her immigration documents with them apparently at all times.

It also empowers the police to detain anyone who are “suspected of being in this country illegally.” The law’s reported aim is to “identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.”

It has provisions that in enforcing law, police might question anyone about his or her “immigration status” if there is "reasonable suspicion." However, there is no definition in the law what this “reasonable suspicion” means. The Arizona law also makes it a state crime to be in the US illegally.

The critics of the law comment that the law will result in “racial profiling of Hispanics.” Some are opposing the new law because it seems to encourage “racial profiling” which is prohibited by numerous existing laws in the country.

The New York Times/CBS poll finds that only 0.51% of the public opinion is in favor of this new immigration law. Opposition is overwhelming.

On May 5, Mayor of Boston Thomas M. Menino and Boston City Council asked the residents of Boston to protest against Arizona’s new immigration law by “cutting ties with companies based in Arizona that agree with the new law,” according to Boston-based Irish Immigrant Newspaper. Mayor Menino whose grandfather was an immigrant comments that Arizona has opted for isolation adopting such as law.

This has a cost as well. Phoenix, a major city in Arizona has already reports loss of $90 million due to “immigration law boycott,” as the New York Daily News reports on May 11. Professional and other organizations are shifting their scheduled events out of Arizona.

However, there are other moves as well: at least 10 States are reportedly looking to copy Arizona’s law. Those States include Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Maryland, according to the Huffington Post.

According to Minneapolis-based Senior Immigration Attorney Scott M. Borene who has been advocating for the reform process, it (immigration reform) is in the top three priorities of President Obama administration. The Attorney acknowledges that U.S. economy is benefited both from the legal and illegal immigrants. “We need immigrants to meet up the deficit in the workforce,” says Attorney Borene at a presentation at the Minnesota State Bar Association on April 19.

The reform aims to pave the way for legalization of an estimated 1.2 million illegal immigrants among others.

However, President Obama administration is now likely stuck with other priorities. After the battle over the health care reform bill, the administration has likely been busy with Afghan war, “home-grown terrorism” issue and at the latest fire in the oil reserve in the Mexico Gulf.

That is why observers see that it is very unlikely to pass the federal immigration reform by this year.

However, professional bodies like the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) have come up with bunch of recommendations. According to a release of AILA, it “…believes any effective, long-term solution to the immigration problem must: 1) require the undocumented population to come out of the shadows and earn legal status; 2) ensure that American businesses are able to hire the workers they need to help grow our economy while protecting U.S. workers from unfair competition; 3) reduce the unreasonable and counterproductive backlogs in family-based and employment-based immigration by reforming the permanent immigration system; and 4) protect our national security and the rule of law while preserving and restoring fundamental principles of due process and equal protection.”

I find no other recommendation but to support AILA’s ones to cover the issue as a whole. It is true that without a specific plan of action by President Obama and the Congress (especially support of the members from the opposition Republic) this new immigration reform bill may also embrace the reality of “no vote” like previous ones as happened in 2008 and 2009. And that is the fear of the related professionals and observers.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Das is a Bangladeshi human rights lawyer currently affiliated with the Human Rights Center and Law School at the University of Minnesota, U.S.A. as a Humphrey Fellow. E-mail: udas1971@gmail.com.

*Originally appeared in the PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), May 21-27, 2010; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=6043.

Recognising the "Armenian Genocide"*

Is the US risking its relations with Turkey by the House Committee’s recognition of the “Armenian Genocide”?

Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from Minneapolis, USA

The United States House Committee on Parliamentary Affairs on 4 March, 2010 adopted a resolution with a narrow margin votes of 23-22 which acknowledged the 1915 mass killing of the ethnic Armenian as “genocide” by the then Ottoman Empire.

Turkey, who is the successor of the Empire, has taken the development painfully and has recalled its Ambassador to the United States Namik Tan to Ankara for consultation regarding follow-up measures. However, this signifies an immediate reaction and diplomatic protest from Turkey.

According to the New York Times (March 5), the US Congress “refused to take any measure” as a follow-up of the resolution. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reportedly assured Turkey that they (the US) are not moving further on the resolution considering backlash in diplomatic relations between the two countries.

According to the survivors of the “genocide” and/or their successors, an estimated 1.5 million people had to die due to the “disintegration policy” of the Ottoman Empire.

However, successor Turkey has been denying any genocide and claims that the number of deaths was not more than 300,000 and that also happened due to the “civil war” and “amid the chaos and unrest surrounding World War I.”

However, the Armenian Diaspora has been successful in advocating their cause and supporting research and publications on the issue.

A group of renowned international scholars and jurists, who reportedly unveiled the public documents of that period, term the mass-killing of the Armenians 95 years ago as “genocide.” In the US, so far 42 States have passed bills or resolutions acknowledging the mass killing as “genocide”.

Referring to the “Armenian genocide,” Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times on March 5 “…the evidence is clear that genocide is the right word for what happened...”

According to this writer, “It's also true that Turkey has a problem acknowledging its brutality toward both Armenians and Kurds, although it has also gotten much better about this in the last decade.”

In a similar move, a bill was passed in 2007 by the US Congress. However, the then Bush administration did not take any further action fearing backlash in the relations with Turkey which is a NATO member country and strategic partner.

Given this backdrop, I interviewed (through e-mail and in person) three practitioners and experts on the respective areas to look into the potential impact and consequences of the resolution.

Edmon Marukyan
Human Rights Lawyer from Armenia

For Mr. Edmon Marukyan who is a human rights lawyer from Armenia and is currently at the University of Minnesota Law School as a Humphrey Fellow, the resolution is the “recognition and acknowledgment” of the “Armenian Genocide.” It is a moral issue for the Armenians.

He observes that over 95 years have passed since the “Armenian genocide” that drove Armenians to spread all over the world. According to him, the Armenians have been advocating for recognition of the “Armenian Genocide” and claiming for justice, if not in the legal sphere, on moral grounds.

Turkey, as the successor of the Ottoman Empire, should look at history honestly and recognize the “Armenian Genocide” as Germany did in case of the Holocaust, the human rights advocate comments.

Ziya Meral
PhD candidate for Political Science,
University of Cambridge, UK

Mr. Zia Meral is originally from Turkey and now has been perusing his doctoral research at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. He is considered as an expert on European-Turkey relations. I met him in Minneapolis while he was attending an international conference in February, 2010.

Mr. Meral observes that the resolution passed in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs might provide a sense of vindication for Turkey. “It comes with a heavy price,” referring to Turkey-US relations he tells me in an e-mail interview.

According to him, in the short term, the Turkey-US relations will be damaged when the US needs close Turkish support for its exit strategies from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same also goes for a possible US sanction against Iran.

Mr. Meral points out that this move by the US House Committee has a detrimental outcome. “The resolution also will harm the ongoing and volatile Armenian and Turkish relations,” he says.

It will give more legitimacy to the nationalist voices in Turkey and Azerbaijan to halt talks. This will have a negative outcome for the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey triangle, as well as for broader stability in the Caucasus, he predicts.

In the long term, this development will block the Turks to hear Armenian voices and paying attention to their suffering, Mr. Meral observes.

According to this Turkish researcher, it plays out the paranoid that what the world cares is to destroy Turkey and accuse it anyway they can. So, although some Armenians might see this as a success, this actually harms exactly what they want; a genuine Turkish acknowledgement of the suffering of Armenians.

“It is simply not enough to enshrine the past, or gain small battles in cornering Turkey. How we pursue the ultimate end we want is as important as remembering the past,” he says.

However, as a Turk he strongly believes that Turkey has to rectify the suffering of Armenians. But “I am saddened by this resolution,” he concludes.


Dr. Ellen J. Kennedy
Professor and Interim Director, Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota

Dr. Ellen J Kennedy has been active in educating people on the devastations and human casualties and sufferings of the holocaust and genocides. According to her, it is the moral obligation of the US to acknowledge “Armenian genocide.” However, she acknowledges that the resolution passed in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs may negatively impact US-Turkey relations. Following is the excerpts from her e-mail interview.

"Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman and other supporters of the resolution have said it well: that the United States has a moral obligation to speak out against genocide, to prevent it happening again. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has labeled this tragedy as genocide.' The U.S. has not done so because of political relationships with Turkey. The Turkish government denies that this was genocide, saying that the numbers of deaths are both over-stated and are a consequence of civil war, not genocide.

"Turkish and Armenian government officials have been negotiating for an improvement of relations between their two countries, including an opening of borders. This resolution may result in Turkey's withdrawal from these negotiations and in a significant decline in relations. For the three million people in Armenia and the eight million Armenians in the Diaspora, who are the world's most scattered people, it represents a welcome acknowledgment of the tragedy that has become almost invisible. Hitler reputedly said, on the eve of efforts to exterminate Europe's Jews, Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

"The Foreign Affairs Committee approved a similar resolution in 2007 but it didn't come to a full vote after pressure from then-President George W. Bush.

"Many human rights groups, the Armenian community, and scholars such as IAGS, noted above, have long advocated for this action.

"In 2006, France's national assembly outlawed denial of the Armenian genocide. Armenian activists in Europe have tried to block Turkey's pending application for membership in the European Union based on this issue."

It is difficult to say what the impact might be. During his campaign for the presidency, Obama pledged to recognize the 1.5 million Armenian deaths as genocide but the administration has now reversed its position. Current relations between Turkey and Armenia can be affected very negatively. Clearly President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton feel that there will be negative repercussions on US-Turkey relations. The US is pushing for new sanctions against Iran to be approved by the UN Security Council; Turkey holds a seat on the council and could withhold approval. In addition, Turkey is a crucial staging ground for US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Das is an Advocate (Attorney) in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and specializes on human rights and migration issues. He is presently affiliated with the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis, U.S.A as a Humphrey Fellow (Fulbright Scholar). E-Mail: udas1971@yahoo.com.

*Originally appeared in the PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), March 12-18, 2010; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5897.

[U.S.] Congress puts history up to vote*

Columns
Congress puts history up to vote
Reverberations from the Armenian slaughter will shake U.S. relations with Turkey.

Published: 03/07/2010

By Uttam Das

Likely a success of the Feb. 5 international conference at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution last week condemning the 1915 Armenian mass killing as “genocide.” The bill succeeded by a narrow margin of 23-22.

The theme of the conference was “The Armenian Genocide within the Framework of National and International Law,” and academics, researchers and legal and human rights experts traveled from across the world to share findings and expertise with colleagues.

A similar genocide acknowledgment bill was passed in 2007 under President George W. Bush but was not signed into law due to political backlash from Turkey, the successor of the Ottoman Empire held responsible for the genocide.

Though the resolutions passed last week do not bring any immediate legal obligation for the United States, its diplomatic and political consequences have already begun to manifest themselves.

This has been seen as a “difficult” and “painful period” for Turkey, which immediately called its U.S. Ambassador, Namik Tan, back to Ankara in diplomatic protest against passage of the resolution.

According to historians, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians died “amid the chaos and unrest surrounding World War I” following the “disintegration policy” of the Ottoman Empire, a New York Times article read last week.

However, Turkey refuses to use the word “genocide” and instead cites the deaths as an outcome of a civil war. Turkey has been waging a campaign against any bill in this regard.

To speculate on the effect this bill would have in both the short and long term, I spoke with Ziya Meral, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Meral, originally from Turkey, spoke of a “sense of vindication” for Turkey, adding that the acknowledgment comes at a heavy price. “At the short term, the Turkey-U.S. relations are being damaged,” Meral wrote in an e-mail response.

It is true that the United States needs an effective partnership with Turkey regarding its strategic and military interests.

According to Meral, who presented at the February conference in Minneapolis, the United States needs close Turkish support for its exit strategies from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same is also true for possible U.S. sanctions against what it deems a nuclear-ambitious Iran.

Observers like Meral point out that the “genocide bill” will further disrupt already volatile Armenian-Turkish relations by giving more legitimacy to nationalist voices in Turkey.

However, the passing of the bill by the U.S. House committee and “recognition and acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide” is seen as a victory for the Armenian “moral issue,” says Edmon Marukyan, an attorney in his home country and a current Humphrey Fellow. He explains that the “genocide” forced Armenians to spread out all over the world. The Armenians have been seeking justice for the genocide “if not on legal sphere,” Marukyan said, “on a moral one.”

According to Dr. Ellen Kennedy, professor and interim director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, for the 3 million people in Armenia and the 8 million Armenians living in other countries, the recent resolution represents a welcome acknowledgment of a tragedy that has become almost invisible. She referred to Hitler saying on the eve of efforts to exterminate Europe’s Jews, “Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

In 2006, France’s National Assembly outlawed the denial of the Armenian genocide. Armenian activists in Europe have also tried to block Turkey’s pending application for membership in the European Union based on this issue, says Kennedy.

However, what prompted the U.S. House committee to pass the bill at this point in time?

Kennedy told me, referring to the Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman, that the United States has a moral obligation to speak out against the genocide and to prevent it from happening again.

According to Kennedy, who is also the executive director of the nonprofit advocacy platform World Without Genocide, scholars have succeeded in labeling the Armenian tragedy “genocide.”

The International Association of Genocide has been successful in patronizing some of the scholars. Even British jurists like Dr. Geoffrey Robertson categorize the Armenian mass killing as “genocide” through research and publications.

It is clear that the United States has avoided a position on the issue, considering consequences from Turkey. But what now?

The Obama administration and the powerful Jewish lobby did not back the Turkish position, as an English newspaper in Turkey, The Daily News & Economic Review, reports.

As a senator, Barack Obama supported the previous Armenian resolution. He was also critical of President George W. Bush for stopping it. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have also reportedly supported similar bills in the past.

However, that does not guarantee that the “genocide bill” would be approved by a Congress dominated by Democrats. Turkey will once again work hard to persuade the Obama administration to keep history’s semantics on its side.

Uttam Das welcomes comments at udas@mndaily.com.

* Originally appeared in the Minnesota Daily; link: http://www.mndaily.com/2010/03/07/congress-puts-history-vote

US to take 20,000 students each year

US to take 20,000 students each year*

This is good news, but the concerned authorities need to keep a watch against dubious consultants who may be out to make a quick buck at the expense of the aspiring students

Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from Minneapolis, USA


I wrote a column in the PROBE News Magazine in November last year exploring prospects of huge number of people’s immigration to the United States from Bangladesh. For its own national and economic needs and interests, the US needs migrant workers and immigrant population. At the same time, it will also look into whom to take in and whom not to, given its related laws and public policies, public opinions, security and other concerns.

Though immigration is normally a federal matter, there may be differences in terms of policy and public opinion from one state to another. Therefore, to succeed in supplying both migrant workers and immigrant populations, the sending countries need to strategize its steps to meet the demand.

In this backdrop, the visiting US Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Policy Ms. Judith A McHale announced in Dhaka recently that her country would take 20,000 students each year from Bangladesh for higher studies. This is indeed good news for Bangladesh and for students who are looking for an opportunity for a standard overseas degree and professional development.

However, a mere announcement is not enough. It is important for the government of Bangladesh to monitor and ensure that the announced number of students are getting the opportunity each year, and negotiate to expand opportunities for scholarships and other financial support form the US government and other sources so that the meritorious students from comparatively non-solvent families could avail this chance. Also, there is a need to press for expanding the number in the years to come, given the requirements of our young generation.

At the same time, another issue comes to forefront -- to standardize the education (i.e. at a school, college and university level) as well as language skills so that our students could compete with their counterparts from other nations. No malpractice should mar this opportunity.

Studentship is one of the prospective ways to enter the US, which may give rise to future opportunities for an individual to adjust his status into a Legally Permanent Resident (Green Card holder) or naturalization and get citizenship in the US, given the skill and interest of the individuals and necessity of the host country and government.

That does not mean that those who will be going for higher studies would settle in the US in future. The government of Bangladesh has to create an environment and infrastructure so that the students come back to home, armed with their new degrees, knowledge and expertise and can use those for the development and benefit of the country. This is what India and China have now started to implement.

US academic institutions have a sound reputation for standard and quality education. There are exceptions, of course, and students have to be careful about that. There is ample opportunity for foreign and international students for higher studies and research scholarships and funding, apart from self-funding ones.

Higher education is also a significant source of revenue for the US exchequer. During the 2008-2009 academic year the country earned about US$ 18 billion from the foreign and international students’ tuition and other fees.

The Washington DC-based Institute of International Education (IIE) projected that during 2008-2009 session, 671,000 international students came to the US. India tops the list with 103,000 students while China sent 98,500.

The area of higher studies and research is wide; curriculums are modern and practical, and renowned institutes have globally acclaimed academics and researchers.

Given my present affiliation, the University Of Minnesota Law School offers diverse ranges of specializations in different branches of law like business and trade, labor and employment, family matters, immigration, and human rights. At the same time, there is opportunity for dual degrees in public policy, business management, media, and health and ethics alongside a law degree.

It is encouraging to hear that the US is going to take a huge number of students for higher studies from Bangladesh yearly. At the same time, it is a matter of concern as well.

Considering the reality in Bangladesh, there may be a mushrooming of so-called advisory and consulting companies. They may give attractive advertisements on TV and in the newspapers.

Given my experiences, working in the migration area and coming to the US with a Fulbright Scholarship, I could say that those so-called consultants do nothing but fill their own pockets with money from aspiring students and their guardians. Therefore, the prospective students and their guardians need to be cautious about any malpractice. They should inquire about an institution through internet or the public affairs section of the US Embassy in Dhaka and contact accordingly.

The respective agencies of the Bangladesh government, the US Embassy, and the American Center in Dhaka need to take special measures to prevent any malpractice. Alongside the websites, national, regional and local newspapers would be effective instruments to disseminate related information. Also, notice boards at academic institutes and government offices at district and divisional levels could be used for disseminating information.

If needed the respective laws and policies need to be amended and their effective implementation would enable the Bangladesh government to prevent and prosecute any emerging malpractice with regard to students’ immigration to the US.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Das is an Advocate in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, presently affiliated as a Humphrey Fellow (Fulbright Scholar) with the Human Rights Center and Law School at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He is a specialist in Human Rights. E-mail: udas1971@yahoo.com, udas1971@yahoo.com

*Originally appeared in PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), Feb 19-Mar 4, 2010; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5844

The seamy underbelly of migration

Columns
The seamy underbelly of migration*
More opportunities for legal immigration reduce dangerous alternatives.

Published: 02/09/2010

Uttam Das
udas@mndaily.com

Mr. X, whose name is withheld for confidentiality, is an immigrant from Burma who now holds a green card and permanently resides in California. He has a wife and three children between 2 and 10 years old. Mr. X had become interested, over the years, in bringing his only sister to America to facilitate her higher studies. Unfortunately, Mr. X found he could not sponsor his sister’s immigration to the United States until he became naturalized, which could take three or four years. Motivated by risky success stories, Mr. X arranged for his sister to “marry” a Burmese immigrant in America to facilitate her journey. The so-called bridegroom received $20,000 for the service.

While the two traveled through Bangkok on their way home, immigration authorities smelled something wrong and eventually unearthed the arrangement. The “couple” had to serve detention there for traveling with forged documents. Mr. X’s sister never made it to the U.S.

Mr. Y of Bangladesh is in his mid-20s. He has attempted six times to go to Italy, paying human smugglers almost $15,000. He is still waiting. Stories like these are all true realities in developing and underdeveloped countries — countries that have yet to recognize the economic benefits of globalization.

I attended a two-day conference on migration issues in New York last month. It was jointly organized by the International Organization for

Migration and the Center for Migration Studies. It was aimed to “examine legal and policy perspectives on irregular migration.” A lot of the discussion between attending senior diplomats, U.N. officials, academic experts and advocates centered on U.S. immigration.

When talking about immigration, we need to remember this country needs migrant workers for its own economy. According to IOM, human mobility that takes place outside the procedures established by a state is irregular, or undocumented, migration. However, immigration restrictions and backlogs force individuals to risk their own lives or pay significant amounts of money to enter the U.S., causing some to fall into an exploitative situation.

According to press reports, desperate youth from impoverished Chinese territories pay $40,000 to human smugglers just to facilitate entry into the mainland U.S. This is also true for migrants from other Asian, Eastern European, African, Central and Latin American countries.

As a destination country, the U.S. holds all rights to manage its own borders, immigration and naturalization systems. Surely, the economy and national security dictate parts of immigration policy.

Gabriela Villareal, Immigration Advocacy Policy Coordinator of the New York Immigration Coalition, could not control her emotions when she explained that as a U.S. citizen, if she applies today to sponsor her siblings’ emigration from the Philippines, it would take 20 to 22 years, despite the fact that our country has immediate need for migrant workers. There was no one to give a logical answer to Villareal, but all underscored the need for an immigration overhaul.

The New York conference recommended the formulation and implementation of comprehensive policies, laws and administrative arrangements to address immigration issues progressively given national, regional and international priorities. Consistency with international legal and human rights norms and practices is needed.

A 2009 study of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs showed that increased opportunities for legal migration could curb riskier migration. At the conference, United Nations Development Programme Administrator and former Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark commented, “If there are legal options for migration, that makes a choice. If not, that drives one to migrate in an illegal way.”

Uttam Das welcomes comments at udas@mndaily.com.

All content © 1900 - 2010
The Minnesota Daily
ARTICLE URL: http://www.mndaily.com/2010/02/09/seamy-underbelly-migration
Retrieved at 14:58 CST on Wednesday Feb 10, 2010

*Originally appeared in The Minnesota Daily (Feb 09, 2010).

American Diary: Debate on healthcare reform

Debate on healthcare reform*

by Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from New York


“Pace of health care reform bogs down under weight of questions and costs” -- the front-page headline of The Buffalo News on July 26, 2009 portrays the present scenario of President Barrack Obama’s proposed healthcare reform initiative. It has generated a great debate throughout the country.

The draft legislation has been under review by a six-member Senate Committee in the office of the Senate Finance Committee chairman since June 17.

It is very unlikely that the US$ 1 trillion overhauling-plan will get an approval before the August recess of the Congress, a dateline set by the President earlier.

It is likely that the President has placed the healthcare reform at the top of his legislative priority. He is pushing for a measure that aims to rein in healthcare costs, improve care and expand coverage to most of the 46 million uninsured Americans.

As the Buffalo News reports, some 14,000 Americans are reportedly losing their health care every day. The majority of them are bankruptcies—62 percent— result from health care costs, along with 50 percent of mortgage foreclosures.

Some observer opines that the present healthcare system has become a “cancer” on US economy.

In 1970, the healthcare costs took up 7.2 percent of the economy, which is now 16 percent.

Americans spent an average of about US$ 6,500 per person on health care in 2006. It is by far the most in the world, and more than twice what Japanese and Germans spent.

However, as of July 28, the reform-agenda has been stalled in the Senate and House of Representatives. Both the houses are controlled by President’s fellow Democrats.

It has been hit by a deluge of criticism over the cost, scope and funding of the measure proposed.

The opposition Republicans are critical of the proposed plan, terming it as an expensive first step toward a government takeover of healthcare.

Some commentators see the struggle in the U.S. Congress over the healthcare reform as Democrats' "honeymoon" with Democratic President Obama coming to an end. Mr. Obama took the office of the President only six months back.

It is also commentated that if the Democratic-controlled Congress and the President could manage to iron out differences and enact healthcare reform by this year, Obama will be able to have fulfilled the most important promises of his 2008 election campaigns.

The proposed healthcare reform is termed as an essential to long-term viability for the US economy.

It is expected to reduce regional disparities in Medicare payments. Now, the Federal Medical Program insures around 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of US$ 450 billion. This is the one-fifth of the US healthcare spending.

As proposed in the reform legislation, the Institute of Medicine will have a year to complete a study on the regional variegations in costs and quality of care and make recommendations to the health and human services Secretary.

The Secretary will then implement new payment rates taking into account the study’s recommendations. Some US$ 8 billion will be set aside by the legislation to implement those payment adjustments.

Some legislators observe that the proposal could help to reduce costs throughout the healthcare system because Medicare is such a huge part of medical coverage in the US. They also observe that private insurance will also be influenced by this overhauling if implemented.

The proposal also calls for a second study by the Institute of Medicine to address ways to reward value and quality care over quantity. Medicare now bases payments on the number of medical procedures. The second report is due by September 2011.

The proposed law also proposes way for “high quality, evidence-based, and patient centered care.” The health and human services Secretary has to report the recommendations of the studies to the Congress, which then will have to act by the end of 2010 to stop them from automatically going into effect.

However, there are other concerns on the proposed healthcare-overhauling.

Some observers see that there will be strong lobby against certain provisions of the reform bill. For example, the proposed reform is to hit the profits by big pharmaceutical companies what they get from the so called patented drugs. They do monopoly business which increase the price of a given ‘patented drug.” The reform aims to limit the protection for the patented drugs.

Also the reform may affect people’s right to privacy as it proposes maintaining of ‘electronic medical records’ of the people undergoing medical care.

How those records will be processed and maintained and who are to have access to those records that is a concern, as Dr. Lynn M. Mather, a Professor of Law and Political Science at the State University of New York at Buffalo observes while responding to a query from this writer. However, she is hopeful about the reform and supports it.

Another concern is that the development concerning the reform may impact on the upcoming mid-term Congressional election-just 15 months ahead.

However, President Obama seems to be optimistic with the reform, and now urges the lawmakers to finalize the healthcare by the end of this year.

The writer, a Dhaka-based human rights lawyer and researcher, is currently in the USA as a Humphrey Fellow. E-mail contact: udas1971@yahoo.com

*Published in the PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), July 31-August 06, 2009; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5403.

American Diary: In the Land of Fortune*

Arriving in the United States, one is met with confusion and queues at the airport and then things smoothen out...


Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from New York

I never thought of to coming to the United States of America, at least at this stage of my life and career. However, I have landed here, in the “Land of Fortune.” The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Award brought me this opportunity. I am scheduled to attend a 10-month academic program and related professional experiences in the USA.

Humphrey Fellows are selected based on the potential for leadership and commitment to public service in either the public or the private sector. The Fellowship is named after the former (late) Senator and Vice-President who had been promoter of civil rights and international cooperation.

I believe that my fortune has brought me here. I never believed in fortune when I was younger, especially as a young student.

Since I had been a student of law, a job in the judiciary was my dream. However, I did not get that job and did not try for any other government job. I had been in the final stages (i.e. appearing in the viva voce) twice in 1997 and 2003 having passed the preliminaries, written examinations, psychological tests etc) of BCS exams, but for unknown reasons, somehow success eluded me. Perhaps the controversial Dr. Ershadul Bari, then Professor of Law, University of Dhaka, had been on viva boards both the occasions.

The ‘failure’ made me frustrated (especially in 1997 while I just got married). I owe much to Professor M. Badaruddin, my teacher, guide and philosopher for his guidance and care during those days. I got new motivation and commitment.

I got serious on my ongoing research work at the Institute of Bangladesh Studies (IBS), University of Rajshahi. Subsequently, I earned a Ph.D. degree in Law and Human Rights in 2002.

This pushed me further: I got a further motivation to prove myself. The outcome: I got place in International Civil Service in late 2003 through joining as a National Professional Official with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I had been in that job until 2007. Though I switched over to another job at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in 2008, I remained in the same (UN) service system.

Having being selected for the Humphrey Fellowship program, I finally decided to leave that job with effect from July 1, 2009.

My flight to the USA was via Hong Kong. I boarded on the Dragon Air-Cathy Pacific joint flight in Dhaka on the early hours of July10, then boarded the 15-hour Chicago-bound flight of the United Airlines. Our flight landed at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago at around 2:00 PM local time same day.

As we were about to alight from the aircraft, we were barred to get down. A disappointing announcement come through: the server system of the “Immigration Department” was down, therefore the passengers had to wait in the aircraft until further announcement. I was totally exhausted after a journey of more than 24 hours. However, there was nothing to do; just wait.

After around half an hour or so, we had good news. We could off-board. Immediately, we rushed to the arrival hall to proceed for the immigration formalities. I had a fear with the reported complexities as immigration process in concerned, as heard from previous travelers. That presumption proved wrong. However, hundreds of travelers stood in the queues for how long, none could say. Like others, I was confused about where to queue. Feeling foolish, I thought, "Did I make a mistake coming here?"

An attending officer was mechanically and loudly announcing: “Those who have American Passports or Residence Card proceed to the bureau; others join the queues.” There was no special arrangement for the elderly people or mother with babies.

I just stood in one line - hundreds of male and females mostly from Southeast Asia stood in front of me. I found that there are 68 desks/booths. Though four of the booths were reserved for the crews, however, more than 200 of them were also queuing in lines. Some were apparently very angry, speaking in languages other than English.

I had nothing to do but, like others, gradually move up with the queue. After around three hours of waiting I reached an officer at a desk. The smart officer was kind enough and did not take much time. He roughly spent 10 minutes to review my J1 visa and related documents and take my photo and thumbprints. I got my passport back with the American stamp of arrival.

I came out of the area, but one of my two checked-in suitcases had not arrived. I was scheduled to complete the immigration formalities and customs clearances in Chicago. The attending person from the airline was not approachable; so busy that I could not even report my point. Then, I reported the issue at my final destination at Buffalo International Airport. The luggage reached me four days later. Anyway, it was in order, thanks to United Airlines.

I have passed just one week at the State University of New York at Buffalo, a city close to the Niagara Falls. I will be here for three weeks, and then move to the University of Minnesota.

I am yet to venture out in the USA. Some people have already made me cautious. The Americans themselves are passing hard times due to the ongoing economic recession. They are angry and frustrated. The younger generation is concerned with employment and the future. I will write separate piece on the issue.

If there is no change in the situation, this may bring misfortune to President Barack Obama for his next election, pro-Democrat academic Dr. Stephen C Dunnett, Professor of Foreign Language Institute and Vice Provost for International Education at the University at Buffalo told a group of 16 Humphrey Fellows gathered here in New York on July 20.

The writer is a Bangladeshi human rights lawyer and researcher; however, presently, in the USA as a Humphrey Fellow. E-mail: udas1971@yahoo.com

*Published in the PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), July 24-30, 2009; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5394.