Pakistan Tops the List in Number of Newly Displaced
May 17, 2010 • By Juliette RousselotA new study by the United Nations has found that Pakistan has the highest number of newly internally displaced people (IDP). According to the report, in 2009, approximately 3 million people were newly displaced.
Of course, Pakistan isn’t the only country with such depressing statistics. Pakistan’s internally displaced are only 3 million of 27 million IDPs worldwide. The country with the most internally displaced people continues to be Sudan with nearly 5 million. But what these numbers really show us is that the victims of war and conflict are always civilians and that the callous disregard of human rights on the part of warring factions, both government and rebel forces, exacerbates this human rights crisis.
Recently, we launched an interactive website, Eyes on Pakistan, which helps to visualize the trends of the conflict in Pakistan. Many IDPs in Pakistan do not have access to organized camps and often rely on host communities and already existing slums for their safety. And despite their attempts to flee the fighting, displaced communities still come face to face with the conflict every day. In April, two suicide bombers killed 38 people and wounded another 65 at a center for the displaced. These human rights violations are then exacerbated by concerns for public health, mental health, and food supplies, not only for those displaced but also for the host communities.
In a more positive note, the UN report also notes that 2009 saw the largest number of returnees. While this may mean that people feel safe enough to return home, we’re left wondering what it is that they are returning to. Too often, their communities have been left in ruin. The returnees are left to rebuild their shattered homes and communities, with little help from their governments.
Just read your statement demanding that the Thai military must "halt the reckless use of force." There is no blog post on the subject, so I shall comment here.
Your statement was filled with inaccuracies, omissions, and half-truths, such as your hearsay claim that "witnesses" saw soldiers firing from long distances, while omitting claims by others that the protesters have also been accused of using snipers, not to mention guns, grenades, and molotov cocktails against soldiers. You also claim that deposed PM Thaksin is in "voluntary exile," while failing to note that he fled the country to avoid being jailed on his conviction for corruption, and that he is funding the protests himself,paying protesters about 10 times the minimum wage per day to wreak havoc on the capital.
I've long assumed that Amnesty was on the side of right, without an agenda. I shall take future reports by Amnesty with a healthy dose of skepticism.
I just saw a debate on DemocracyNow about just this subject, mak. Sounds to me as though the truth is being abused by both sides. Didn't see the Amnesty statement yet but I'd agree that it's at best premature to accept everything they hear on the subject – from one faction – is at best, premature.
Here's a link to the debate: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/18/debating_th…
Just read your statement demanding that the Thai military must “halt the reckless use of force.” There is no blog post on the subject, so I shall comment here.
Your statement was filled with inaccuracies, omissions, and half-truths, such as your hearsay claim that “witnesses” saw soldiers firing from long distances, while omitting claims by others that the protesters have also been accused of using snipers, not to mention guns, grenades, and molotov cocktails against soldiers. You also claim that deposed PM Thaksin is in “voluntary exile,” while failing to note that he fled the country to avoid being jailed on his conviction for corruption, and that he is funding the protests himself,paying protesters about 10 times the minimum wage per day to wreak havoc on the capital.
I’ve long assumed that Amnesty was on the side of right, without an agenda. I shall take future reports by Amnesty with a healthy dose of skepticism.
I just saw a debate on DemocracyNow about just this subject, mak. Sounds to me as though the truth is being abused by both sides. Didn't see the Amnesty statement yet but I'd agree that it's at best premature to accept everything they hear on the subject – from one faction – is at best, premature.
Here's a link to the debate: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/18/debating_th…
I just saw a debate on DemocracyNow about just this subject, mak. Sounds to me as though the truth is being abused by both sides. Didn't see the Amnesty statement yet but I'd agree that it's at best premature to accept everything they hear on the subject – from one faction – is at best, premature.
Here's a link to the debate: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/18/debating_th…
I just saw a debate on DemocracyNow about just this subject, mak. Sounds to me as though the truth is being abused by both sides. Didn’t see the Amnesty statement yet but I’d agree that it’s at best premature to accept everything they hear on the subject – from one faction – is at best, premature.
Here’s a link to the debate:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/18/debating_the_crisis_in_thailand_is