Recent Protests in Turkey and Brazil

For a blog on social movements, I haven't done much tracking of the two recent major protests in Turkey and now Brazil. This AP article provides a basic comparison of the two protests. David Meyer has a better comparison here. In trying to understand protests, everyone looks for parallels: Student rebellions of 1968, Occupy Wall Street, Iranian Green Revolution of 2009, the Arab Spring?

Source: Reuters

Mass protests at the outset appear random and chaotic. The spark which triggers mobilization is rarely predictable. Yet, once a protests gets underway, for those well-versed in social movement theory, mobilization patterns and behavior all seem fairly predictable. At a broad level, there is nothing particularly unique about either protest. As Christian Davenport argues, however, the media would have you think otherwise.

Let's start with Turkey. Few people realize that the protests over Gezi Park had actually been ongoing for a couple of years on a very small scale by one main group (Taksim Solidarity). Only when the government began the process of razing the park did protests escalate, triggering mass protests. The police overreacted and cracked down on protesters. Images of violent clashes circulated in the media fueling more attention, resources, and warm bodies for the movement. At this point, the protests became less about saving Gezi Park, and more about grievances against the Erodgan government. This opened the door for a wide variety of groups to join the fray. It's unclear whether any formal coalition has organized. Soli Ozel believes that the protests are rooted in political dissatisfaction with Erdogan and his authoritarian handling of social and economic issues. This suggests that protests will continue to reemerge, even if this current protest cycle dies down. But on the other hand, without the right political timing or without additional resources and leadership, the movement risks losing momentum and becoming co-opted by the state.  Of course, the local-cultural nuances at the micro-level are always unique.But the broader dynamics of movement escalation and state-societal interaction spelled out here are almost identical to what I witnessed regarding anti-base movements on Jeju Island a couple years ago. They also follow patterns similar to protests during the Arab Spring or the Occupy movements.

Moving onto Brazil, we see a similar chain of events. Long standing grievances about poor public services relative to Brazil's high tax rate have irked Brazilians. But only with the announced fare hike did a political opportunity for larger scale protests exist. Civil societal pressure led to modest concessions from the government in hopes that part o the movement might seek asylum. What next? This excellent article in the Post raises that very question and highlights a key dilemma: "If protests focus too narrowly on single issues such as bus fares, they risk losing steam when the issue is addressed. And if they embrace too many issues, they risk spreading themselves too thin to achieve any of their goals."

Source: Tasso Marcelo - AFP/Getty Images

The concessions intended to ease and co-opt protests seems to have failed in the short-run. But where is this all heading? The motive and grievances of protesters go well beyond fare hikes at this point. Contrary to this interview on NPR where a young activist states, "We don't believe in organiz[ing] ourselves in leadership, and someone just following orders. And I think that leadership is not something that would help us. On the opposite, I think we should all be organizing as equals,"  Contrary to the preceding quote, I'm certain there is some form of organization and leadership being assembled as we speak. But still, protesters (as in Turkey) have yet to form a list of specific demands or form any clear leadership. In that sense, the comments of the young protester seem a little naive. But who am I to judge. It is after all their movement. For protesters in Turkey and Brazil, simply being able to vent and letting their government and the entire world know that they are fed up with government restrictions or poor government service may be the ultimate goal. Maybe politicians and policymakers will listen and make changes. Maybe they won't.

Going back to my original point, the recent protests in Turkey and Brazil follow broad patterns outlined by social scientists. This increases my confidence in academic theory and that theory can actually be useful.

Update: A similar sort of argument from Anne Applebaum looking at Brazil, Turkey, Egypt.

The Laotian Nine: Escaping or Trafficked out of North Korea?

A North Korean human rights issue which has captured much attention recently is the return of the Laotian Nine: last month, nine North Korean defectors (all reportedly orphans) caught in Laos were detained by the Laotian government before being repatriated back to North Korea. The nine, with the aid of an activist/pastor, had navigated the underground railroad out of North Korea through China and into Laos over the past two years in hopes of seeking asylum in South Korea. Laotian actions potentially violated international law which prevents countries from repatriating refugees if their lives are endangered. Because of the media spotlight, there's some hope that the nine orphans, mostly children, will avoid being sent to the gulags, but there fate now is unknown.The case has received attention not only because of the number of children involved, but because Laos had been seen as a relative safe haven for defectors.

It's clear that Pyongyang has been cracking down on the number of defectors the past few years. There's speculation that the North Koreans (and perhaps the Chinese) may have pressured the Laotian government this time to repatriate the nine young defectors. The Laotian (and North Korean) government claimed that the nine were "trafficked"  out of North Korea by a Christian activist/pastor.

Here lies the moral and legal dilemma faced by third party countries like Laos or China and the importance of labels. In China, those who escape North Korea are labeled as "economic migrants" rather than refugees. As economic migrants, they are not protected under international law and therefore sent back to North Korea. In the Laotian nine case, Vientiane claimed the nine were "trafficked", an action which paradoxically makes the children victims of human rights abuse. Morally, we know it's wrong to send defectors back to North Korea if the chance of torture, hard labor, or death for defectors are high (which they are according to human rights reports). But legally, what do you do if providing safe haven or aiding defectors violates the sovereignty of another country (in this case North Korea). To put this in perspective, if a U.S. citizen breaks the law and flees another country, the US would certainly not want other countries giving safe haven to defectors and insist they be repatriated back to the U.S. (i.e. draft dodgers during the Vietnam era, or more recently, Edward Snowden). And yes, I'm aware the U.S. is no North Korea.

Of course, we tend to treat North Korea as a country which has given up its right to be judged as a sovereign state since North Korea repeatedly violates international law (or norms, natural law etc...) and apply domestic laws arbitrarily and unevenly (North Korea laws are interpreted and applied at the discretion of the regime. But here's a somewhat alternative view). Most human rights advocates, including myself, are appalled at the decision to repatriate the nine defectors, mostly children. Yet from the perspective of Vientiane, Beijing, or Pyeongyang which also consider national interests, diplomatic relations, and economic costs and not just moral reputation and international codes of ethics, the decision is surely a complicated one. Activists and states which adhere closely to the UN conventions must continue to persuade - through instrumental means or moral suasion - why a blanket policy of repatriation is wrong (i.e. there must be a way to distinguish between refugees, economic migrants, and trafficked persons). They must also press countries which have some diplomatic purchase over North Korea (i.e. China) to push Pyeongyang to address issues which are at the root cause of defection: food shortages, abject poverty, and human rights abuses.