Como China colonizó la mitad de Mongolia

El Partido Comunista Chino ha colonizado regiones en Asia que alguna vez pertenecieron a otras culturas como Xin-Jiang donde moran los uigures, y el Tibet donde viven los tibetanos. Pero, conocemos algo sobre la “Mongolia Sureña”?

Mongolia es famosa por la manera en la que se montan los caballos, las yurtas y los canticos guturales. Pero, existe una segunda Mongolia: La Region Autónoma Interior de Mongolia, que es una provincia China, conocida también por reportes de abusos de derechos humanos.

Entonces, parecería que existen dos Mongolias: El pais de Mongolia y la Region Autónoma China de Mongolia Interior, conocida como “Mongolia del Sur”. Pero, cuales son las grandes diferencias entre ambas zonas?

Para comenzar, ambas formaron parte de una gran nación, no existieron dos Mongolias. Esta division comenzó en 1949 cuando la Republica Popular de China anexó a su territorio la zona de “Mongolia del Sur” como “Mongolia Interior”, pero históricamente ambas son parte de una gran nación Mongola.

Segun mapas históricos, bajo la dinastía Qing, que reinó en China entre 1644 a 1911, Mongolia aparece enteramente como parte del imperio chino de ese entonces, sin embargo, para  Enghebatu Tochohog, del Centro de Información para Derechos Humanos de Mongolia del Sur, existe discrepancia en dichos documentos y mucha confusion con la terminología empleada para describirlos. Tochohog afirma que la dinastía Qing no era china, sino manchú, siendo entonces una union de gobiernos entre mongoles y manchúes sobre ese vasto territorio.

Para Tochohog, antes de 1644 los manchúes y los mongoles eran vecinos con excelentes y cercanas relaciones, especialmente las zonas del Manchu y Mongolia del Sur. Incluso el fundador de la Dinastia Qing, Nurhachi, se proclamaba a si mismo descendiente del Khan mongol, Themur Khan. Entonces, en el inicio de la Dinastía Qing, los Manchúes se consideraban a si mismos como descendientes legítimos de la nación mongola.

Entonces, China ha sido parte de Mongolia por cientos de años?

Tochohog contesta que sí, ya que China solo fue una provincia mongola durante la existencia del Gran Imperio Mongol. Entonces, China fue parte de Mongolia desde tiempos ancestrales. Ahora, los chinos reclaman que Mongolia y el Tibet fueron parte de China desde hace unos miles de años atrás. Pero eso no es verdad porque Mongolia es una region dividida. Si vemos la historia entre Mongolia y China, existe una gran muralla entre ambos territorios.

La Gran Muralla China es una suerte de frontera sur de lo que hoy es Mongolia Interior?

Tochohog: En realidad la Gran Muralla China es el verdadero limite histórico entre la nación de Mongolia y la Nación China. Incluso no es solo el limite nacional sino el limite entre dos civilizaciones, ya que el norte de la Gran Muralla China es una civilización nómada, la cual es totalmente diferente de la civilización agrícola que existió en el sur. Y no solo eso, es también el límite de dos climas diferentes. Si vemos en clima de la meseta mongola, esta es totalmente diferente del clima existente en China.

Vea mas en: Video:

New Myanmar Law Regulates Interfaith Marriage

[This] “law is one of four ‘protection laws’ that would affect religious conversion, interfaith marriage, polygamy and population control. These bills, collectively known as the ‘protection of race and religion laws,’ were proposed in 2013 by Ma Ba Tha, a group of nationalistic Buddhist monks.” (

by Anna K. Poole
Posted 7/15/15, 11:48 am

Image: (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe) –

Human rights groups are blasting a new law adopted last week in Myanmar, also known as Burma, requiring women to register their intent to marry outside their faith. The legislation gives the government power to halt the marriage of a Buddhist woman to a non-Buddhist man if someone raises objections to the union.

“It’s shocking that Burma’s parliament has passed yet another incredibly dangerous law, this time legislating clearly discriminatory provisions targeting the rights of religious minority men and Buddhist women to marry who they wish without interference,” said Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division.

Myanmar’s new marriage law is the second of a four-part series of bills known as the Protection of Race and Religion Laws, drafted by hardliner Buddhist monks with a staunch anti-Muslim agenda.

In May, President Thein Sein enacted the first of these laws, a population control bill mandating a 36-month gap between children for certain mothers and giving regional authorities the power to implement birth spacing in overcrowded areas. Some argue the legislation is aimed at curbing high birth rates in the Muslim community. The population bill is vague about the penalty for unauthorized births less than three years apart, but it could include coerced contraception, forced sterilization, or abortion.

For a non-Buddhist man in Myanmar, stepping into an interfaith marriage could prove ruinous. According to a recent Human Rights Watch report, the marriage legislation prohibits husbands from “committing deliberate and malicious acts, such as writing, or speaking, or behaving, or gesturing with intent to outrage feelings of Buddhists.” Noncompliance is considered a divorce-worthy offense, sweeping away the man’s land and child custody rights, and punishable with a prison stint of up to four years.

In November, when Sein first sent a draft of the bill to Parliament, The Myanmar Times reported some women’s disapproval.

“We already have restrictions on marriage because we need to marry in the same faith and caste,” said one Burmese woman, who requested anonymity. “I’m curious how this law will actually protect Buddhist women.”

The marriage act changes little for Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims, one of the most severely oppressed minority groups in the world. Denied citizenship within Burmese borders, the Rohingya are essentially stateless and already face tight restrictions on the right to register marriages, births, and deaths. Since 2012, heavy persecution of minority Rohingya Muslims by radical Buddhist groups has sparked a maritime mass exodus and regional refugee crisis.

By signing the interfaith marriage bill into law, “the [Myanmar] government and ruling party lawmakers are playing with fire,” Robertson said. With the landscape of this Buddhist-majority nation increasingly stained by sectarian violence, legislators risk much by proposing such inflammatory restrictions. The marriage bill, like the population control bill before it, will only add fuel to Myanmar’s simmering religious tension.

The pending half of Myanmar’s Protection of Race and Religion Laws include a monogamy bill criminalizing extramarital affairs and a bill requiring government registration and approval prior to religious conversion.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

In: world

Video: Al Jazeera English

Video: Kachin Australia

Read also:

18 Oct 2017: Burma Shows Us What a ‘Muslim Ban’ Really Looks Like: Apartheid

06 Jul 2016: New govt to defend ‘race and religion’ laws at UN meeting

07 Nov 2015: ‘Muslims are dangerous’: Myanmar Buddhist monks threaten democracy with support for anti-Muslim laws

22 Aug 2015: Discriminatory ‘Race and Religion’ bills threaten tensions ahead of elections: APHR

14 Jul 2015: Myanmar law restricting marriage of Buddhist women blasted by EU, rights groups

09 Jul 2015: A trap law for married men and women

18 Dec 2014: Myanmar women object to proposed restrictions on interfaith marriage

28 Jul 2014: Women unite against ethnic and gender discrimination in Myanmar

09 Jul 2015: Burma: Reject Discriminatory Marriage Bill

14 Jul 2014: WHRDs in Burma under threat for opposing Interfaith Marriage Bill

07 Jul 2014: Myanmar’s Parliament Approves Controversial Interfaith Marriage Law

16 Jun 2014: Myanmar President Thein Sein and Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw Thura Shwe Mann: No Interfaith Marriage Bill

12 Jun 2014: U.S. opposes Burma’s plan to restrict interfaith marriage

05 Jun 2014: Nearly 100 Myanmar Groups Slam Move to Restrict Interfaith Marriages

04 Jun 2014: Fears of new unrest as Myanmar ponders monk-backed interfaith marriage ban

06 May 2014: Women of Burma speak out against Interfaith Marriage Act

27 Mar 2014: Burma’s Muslims Are Facing Incredibly Harsh Curbs on Marriage, Childbirth and Religion

25 Mar 2014: Human Rights Watch calls Myanmar to scrap proposed restrictions on interfaith marriages

25 Mar 2014: Rights Group Slams Proposed Curbs on Interfaith Marriage in Myanmar

28 Feb 2014: Myanmar to mull interfaith marriage law

09 Jan 2014: Wirathu to Discuss Interfaith Marriage Restrictions at Monks’ Conference

17 Jul 2013: Controversial Myanmar Marriage Proposal Gains Two Million Signatures

20 Jun 2013: Suu Kyi Blasts Proposed Law on Marriage Restrictions

Biafra: HURIWA condemns use of force against Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB members

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria, HURIWA, has condemned what it termed “overwhelming use of extreme brute and unmoderated military force by Nigerian Army “in the ongoing Operation Python Dance II exercise in the South East.

HURIWA said there was no legal reason for the deployment of the Military in the first instance given that “there was no extenuating circumstances such as any imminent threats to the national security nor was there any threat to the territorial integrity of Nigeria as prescribed by sections 5(4); 217 and 218 of the Constitution of Nigeria.”

The Rights group faulted the deployment of the Army without “recourse to the National Assembly given that the Indigenous of Biafra (IPOB) apart from being non-violent is canvassing self determination recognised by the International Covenant on civil and political Rights and several other global human rights laws.”

HURIWA in a statement by Emmanuel Onwubiko, said it made no sense that at the time that the President had inaugurated a human rights violations’ panel on allegations of military’s involvements in gross human rights violations, the operatives and officers of the Army embarked on another rounds of grave human rights breaches including committing extrajudicial killings of many civilians.

The Rights group said from eye witnesses who gave well corroborated information, the military engaged in broad day vicious attack of the premises of the traditional ruler of AfaraUkwu Umuahia the father of Nnamdi Kanu leading to the killing of dozens of suspected members of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB) who were not armed.

The statement reads, “There is no legal, moral or ethical justification for the reported widespread extra judicial executions by armed soldiers of unarmed suspected members of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB) in the home of the leader of the pro-self determination lobby group in Umuahia and Aba since last Friday.

“It is unfortunate that Ethnic and religious leaders outside of the South East of Nigeria who condemned the agitation for self determination by IPOB have suddenly become complicit and are maintaining disturbing conspiratorial silence over the deliberate killings by soldiers of unarmed civilians. The larger implications of these killings and the failure of leaders of divergent platforms to condemn these atrocious and cowardly acts of criminality will undermine national harmony and mutual trust for generations to come.

“The photographic and video evidences of these massacres show that most of those killed were definitely fleeing from the invading soldiers which proves clear cases of gross crime against humanity which must be transparently and independently investigated and the soldiers who undertook that operation and used lethal weapons on the civilian population are tried and punished”.

HURIWA which accused the Military of carrying out the operation as if the nation was under a martial law, wondered why the armed security forces went after Nnamdi Kanu and his supporters with so much force, fury and overwhelming firepower even when there was no armed confrontation from the unarmed and totally peaceful members of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB).

The Rights group blamed the military’s occupation of South East of Nigeria for the tensions building up all across the civil populace because the impression created is that of military domination, conquer and occupation of the South East of Nigeria that has poor representation in the command and control structures of the Nigerian Military under President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration.

The group said the current administration must demonstrate equity and equality of representation of all segments of the population in the command and control structures of the Armed forces just as the Rights group faulted the exclusive alienation of a major Ethnic group like the Igbo in the distribution of strategic military positions in line with the Fexeral Character principle of the Constitution.

HURIWA also accused the Buhari’s government of abuse of power and for double standards and discrimination against the South East by going after IPOB and systematically implementing the demands of both the Arewa elders and youth who had issued a quit notice on Igbos in the North.

“Prior to the controversial military deployment the South East of Nigeria was very peaceful even as persons from all parts of Nigeria were going about their businesses without harassment but the Nigeria Army came with the python dance and created animosity amongst the different ethnic nationalities and this military deployment that has occasioned the killings of many young Igbo youth is interpreted in so many quarters as coordinated Ethnic pogrom.

“We hereby call on the International community not to wait until the entire youth population are wiped off in the name of waging military manhunt against IPOB members before any action can be taken. The South East governors are also guilty of complicity in these killings and their illegal proscription of IPOB has created the avenue for further attacks against the unarmed and totally peaceful members of the Indigenous peoples of Biafra (IPOB)”, the statement added.

In: dailypost

UN Report Card Gives US ‘Failing Grade’ on Human Rights

Citing torture, detentions without trial, and police violence, the UN Human Rights Committee’s catalogs dismal performance by world power

"These low grades suggest the U.S. has a long way to go before it is in compliance with international law," said Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice. (Photo: amboo who?/flickr/cc)

“These low grades suggest the U.S. has a long way to go before it is in compliance with international law,” said Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice. (Photo: amboo who?/flickr/cc)

By: Sarah Lazare

A United Nations committee of independent monitors this week released a damning assessment of human rights in the United States, showing an overall dismal performance on issues from Guantanamo Bay detentions to mass surveillance to accountability for past atrocities—earning what the U.S. Human Rights Network called a “failing grade.”

The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s investigation was one of a handful of periodic reviews aimed at evaluating countries that have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights established in 1976. In particular, the assessment measured U.S. implementation of the committee’s recommendations for improving the country’s human rights record.

The experts determined that the U.S. performance in 2014 was “relatively poor,” Vincent Ploton, head of external relations for the Geneva-based Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), told Common Dreams.

The agency delivers grades that range from “A” the “E.” The U.S. score for 2014 was summarized in the following graphic, compiled by CCPR. Ploton explained: “There is only one B1 grade, which means substantial action was taken. C1 means that there was no implementation, and C2 is worse, as it means the information provided by the U.S. was not relevant to the recommendations. D1 means there was no response.”

Click to enlarge:


The U.S. had no A grades, and “the fact that the CIA report was only partially published was likely the reason for the B1 grade,” noted Ploton, referring to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of post-9/11 CIA torture.

“These low grades suggest the U.S. has a long way to go before it is in compliance with international law,” said Faiza Patel, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, in a statement. The Brennan Center and Amnesty International previously raised concerns to the Committee about mass surveillance in the United States. “The Administration and Congress must take immediate steps to address the lack of intelligence oversight and restore the right to privacy in the digital age.”

The findings prompted immediate condemnation from human rights and social justice organizations based in the U.S., including the Dream Defenders, who joined a civil society delegation to Geneva last year to urge the repeal of “Stand Your Ground” laws.

“It is shocking that after being given an entire year to address Stand Your Ground’s ‘incompatibility with the right to life,’ the United States has failed to act with a sense of urgency,” said Ciara Taylor, director of political consciousness for the Dream Defenders. “We see utter disregard for the lives of people of color in policies like Stand Your Ground, and in the daily actions of local law enforcement officials, who are positioned within the system to uphold these policies and the State’s many systems of oppression.”

“The Committee is right: the US is pressing forward with military commissions which violate international human rights standards,” declared James G. Connell III, an attorney for Guantanamo detainee Ammar al Baluchi. “Torture corrupts everything it touches, and these military commissions are no exception.”

And as journalist Kevin Gosztola wrote in his assessment of the UN report on Wednesday, “Detainees in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay remain in prison cells without charge or trial. There is no plan to abandon the dysfunctional and second-class legal system known as military commissions. Not only do those detainees lack rights to a fair trial, but they continue to endure torture and abuse as the political class in America ignores the fact that most never committed any crimes against the United States.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License



U.N. Gives U.S. Flunking Grades on Privacy and Surveillance Rights