 Hello and welcome to Daily Debrief brought to you by People's Dispatch. I am Shriya. In the United Kingdom, the illegal migration bill that was introduced by the Rishi Sunak government this week has stirred up widespread criticism from all corners for undermining fundamental human rights. In Sri Lanka, meanwhile, activists and medical workers from the South Asian countries' health sector staged demonstrations on March 8 to call attention to the impact of the year-long economic crisis on the health of its population and the country's flailing health sector. And finally, we all talk about the South Korean government's appealing a district court's landmark ruling that had ordered compensation to a victim of atrocities committed by the country's armed forces during the war in Vietnam. On March 8, the UNHCR condemned UK's new illegal migration bill that was tabled in the House of Commons early this week, calling it a clear breach of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UN Refugee Agency has urged the MPs to reconsider the bill. If adopted, the new bill would deny the right to seek refugee protection to people arriving irregularly in the United Kingdom, such as those risking their lives to cross the English Channel in small boats. Instead, these asylum seekers would face detention and deportation without having their individual circumstances examined. We're joined by Anish from People's Dispatch with latest updates on this story. Welcome to this episode, Anish. Glad to have you back. So in UK, can you take us through the main provisions of this bill that is being criticized so far and wide, just to get an essence of what is the bill really about? Yeah, so I'll just run through some of the main features of the bill. We have to talk about how it deals with undocumented immigrants. To begin with, it gives them a certain set of criminality. It assigns a criminality to immigrants in general if they are undocumented. Now, the very word of people who arrive in the UK illegally, it's just that in most cases, many of them, like the way we have talked about in the United States, in most cases, it's not necessarily people who have willfully arrived into the UK or are in the UK illegally, so to speak, but are just undocumented or did not have their papers right at the right time. In several other cases, we have people who get trafficked and obviously the center of the entire bill, the refugees themselves. So in most of these cases, documentation is not an easy process. Going through, quote unquote, proper channels is also not the first option for most of them. So in many of these cases, what they stand behind a certain protection that are given to them, which does not give them defaulted criminality, and these provisions are being taken up. These are basic human rights provisions that anybody should be having, whether or not they have come into a country illegally or legally or whatever. It's just certain basic provisions where they are given certain benefits of doubt. They are given certain human rights to be able to appeal to courts, go to courts. But these are some of the things that the new bill seeks to remove from people who are undocumented immigrants. Most of the cases, it's basically provisions to send them back to the home country. There is definitely a safe conditions clause. Basically, they will send them to a third safe country. But in most cases, it's just basically deportation that is at the heart of the bill. And obviously, there are some very contentious issues with the bill because it basically attacks refugees. It basically attacks people who have been trafficked into the UK. And they will not be getting any of the protections that the British law currently provides them to be able to not only seek asylum, but also to fight back against or access justice against those who have trafficked them to the country, those who have put them in dire and dangerous situations. This is something that will be denied after this bill. Right. Anish, one more thing. You referred to how the essence of the criticisms that are coming along for this bill. And this aligns with also what UNHCR highlighted is a violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention. So that's really refugee rights. They stand to be violated. Can you tell us a little more about this? Yeah. So the Refugee Convention essentially gives refugees, was created with an intention to give refugees a chance to not only seek safe asylum, but also to have protections for them against any kind of unwarranted harassment or state persecution in the country that they have found themselves in because of the conditions back home. Now, we are also looking at there is one certain aspect of this, which is that the bill will take out any kind of modern slavery claims that a refugee or somebody who has been trafficked into the UK. And in many of the cases, people, when we see Rishi Sunak standing in front of billboards and banners that say send the boats back, the people who come by boats are basically people who are by many several definitions can be called as trafficked because they have been, you know, duped into thinking that they are gaining safe asylum in a country which does not want them. And they end up being in situations that are dangerous, that can, you know, that are harmful to them in general. And so in such a condition, it's these refugees, these people who have been trafficked that needs protections, but instead of that, this will be taken away from them. The UNHRC has come out very strongly against it. You already have people in Britain coming out very strongly, some even calling it comparable to Nazi Germany's policies on immigration. And which is quite, you know, comparable considering the fact that it does not want to consider any kind of human rights protections for people who come from outside the United Kingdom unless they go through certain very rigid standards that the British government is right now keen on prescribing. So, which essentially goes against any kind of spirit of, you know, giving or affording anybody who are in need protections or asylum safe asylum. And that is what the criticisms are centering around. Obviously, you have the wider anti immigration sentiments being whipped up by the Tory government at a time when the Sunni government is unable to, you know, deliver a lot of promises that he came to power with and not being able to, you know, restrain the economic, the spiraling economic crisis within the United Kingdom or to deal with the, you know, the union protests that are happening right now. But this sort of, you know, anti immigration sentiments often becomes like a mask for all of these incompetencies of his government. So that is also a part of the debate, but at the centre of it is real human rights questions of people who are victims of the circumstances, of very dire circumstances, should I add. And that is what the British government right now is trying to take away. Thank you so much for joining us, Anish. We'll be back with you soon for another story. We go to South Asia now, where in the island nation of Sri Lanka, an economic crisis has carried on for nearly an year, leading to severe shortages of food, fuel and medicine. Sri Lanka's massive drugs shortage had peaked last year, pushing its largely state funded sector to the brink of collapse. Although there is some relief, but the crisis continues to impact the marginalised sections of Sri Lankan society, especially its women and children who battle deteriorating, reproductive and sexual health as well as malnutrition. We're joined by Cyril Peris of People's Health Movement, Sri Lanka for more updates on this issue. Welcome to this episode, sir. And very glad to have you. The first question is about the protest yesterday. What were the some of the demands that were raised yesterday at the protest and what were the concerns that the protesters and the health workers, they were raising? Yesterday protest, we organised with our network. That means including political parties, NGOs, trade unions and well-wishers. So we demand, especially for needs for mothers. That means mothers are suffering a lot of this crisis. So we demand food. We demand stationery for children. And we demand food for lactating mothers and pregnant mothers. And especially we emphasise, within this crisis, worst lead effect for the women. So this government was concerned about women first, then we can solve this problem. Otherwise, government can tell various things to the people, but women and children are suffering from, they can't, this is enough for them. So the government should give some type of relief for women and children. So those are our demands yesterday. Right. And one more thing, what has, can you also paint as a larger picture of what has been the situation of the health sector in one year of the economic crisis? First, I would like to give some scenario about health situation in Sri Lanka. Nearly 5 million Sri Lankan, including 200,000 in Kalambua, living hand to mouth, eating less, selling their gold jewelry and borrowing money. Among those at least 56,000 children under 5 years with severe acute malnutrition and need nutrition rich food. The UN says up to 22% of the population needs food day. It says 86% of homes are reducing what they eat and some are going without meals. So this is the situation of health situation of Sri Lanka at present. Yes. And the implications that coming of IMF into the island can have on the health sector because the health sector is largely state funded. It covers a wide base of the population. What are some of the effects it will have on the marginalized sections of the Sri Lankan population? Present situation is actually free health system is not functioning. Doctors are going abroad. Health center, other professionals are trying to go abroad and find some jobs. So this situation, there are not only drugs, lack of shortage of shortage of health personnel. So actually our hospitals, now they can examine patients and they are given prescription to buy drugs from outside. But sometimes pharmacists also have shortage of drugs. This is the present situation, very worst time in Sri Lanka. All right. Thank you so much for joining us today. It's been great talking to you and it's great to have you with us on the show. Thank you so much Mr. Paris for joining us. Thank you. On March 8, the Defense Ministry of the Republic of Korea announced that the government has appealed a court order to compensate a Vietnamese victim of atrocities committed by South Korean troops who had fought alongside US forces during the Vietnam War. The District Court's order, which came in February, rewarded compensation worth 30 million won, which is being seen as a historic move and a first legal acknowledgement of South Korea's role in the war in Vietnam. Anish is back with us with the latest update on this story. So Anish, first questions first, what is this case really about and what are the latest updates? So yeah, so this case was first filed in 2020, pretty much two years after group of civil society movements in South Korea created the People's Tribunal for atrocities, or at least atrocities committed by South Korean troops in Vietnam. So in this case specifically, we have the appellant, which is when Thitan, she was one of the survivors of a massacre that was allegedly committed. Allegedly, I say that with a pinch of salt, but in this case, it was proven in the court, committed by South Korean troops in 1968 in Central Vietnam, which killed about 70. And she has been offered compensation by the South Korean court in Seoul, which is a District Court, so it's a lower court obviously, but still definitely acknowledged both the atrocities committed by the South Korean forces in Vietnam at the time, and also how South Korea is liable to pay for the atrocities that it has committed there. So we're talking about, so this is the first search case, and it is also the first search case where as we pointed out, a very legal or judicial recognition has happened of the atrocities. Obviously, it is not the first time that South Koreans are made aware of the atrocities that their country or their soldiers committed in Vietnam during the war. It was pretty much well known at least since the 1990s, right after the military dictatorship was overthrown, and there were talks about the government's own massacres committed within South Korea, so there was also talks about, parallely, about South Korea's involvement in the atrocities that aligned forces or pro-US forces committed in Vietnam. And obviously, this opens up a whole new opportunity. Well, opportunity is not the right word, but a whole new avenue for victims of various atrocities, talking about what from very conservative estimates hundreds or maybe even more than a thousand people killed, and more than that, the level of atrocities which includes leveling of entire villages, holding people captive, sexual assault, and so on, being committed on Vietnamese people, most of them civilian by South Korean forces, with or without the association of the United States. So in such cases, there is now a whole new avenue being opened up where compensation claims while South Korea is already dealing with compensation claims of Japanese atrocities on Koreans, we are now also seeing a parallel movement for South Koreans to reckon with their own atrocities that they have committed on Vietnam, on Vietnamese people. Right, and on that note, Anish, can you also take us through the history of South Korea's involvement in the war in Vietnam? Yeah, so South Korea was after the United States, it was the largest force present in Vietnam during the war. It had more than 300,000 troops, active troops at its peak. And in many cases, the US forces pretty much outsourced a lot of military operation. It was pretty much like an outsourced set of operations because the US was paying the South Korean government and its troops in wages and amounts that were far cheaper than what it would have been to deploy US forces to the ground. So it was pretty much an outsourced sort of force mobilization that South Korea had benefited from. In fact, the South Korea's presence in Vietnam benefited not only the government at the time which secured extensive US military and economic support in many ways, but also generous contracts, military contracts even that helped many of its corporations to boom by the late 70s. And that pretty much is part of the reason why what explains the kind of prosperity that South Korea saw in the 80s and 90s. But nevertheless, this presence obviously came with a certain level of ruthlessness because we have to remember it was not a no democratic government in South Korea that was deploying these forces. It was a military dictatorship and it pretty much served the purpose of not only legitimizing the military dictatorship with the Western powers or pro-Western powers in the region, but also supported it against internal resistance. And that pretty much kept the dictatorship in power both in South Korea and also at the same time encouraged in many ways the Korean troops to be unhinged in many ways. They were in fact reports where the US commanders were actually complaining about South Korean troops being ruthless and more ruthless or committing atrocities, which is how dire the situation was in many instances. So this is the sort of baggage that South Korea had with its military presence in Vietnam. And after the end of the war, much of this atrocities, much of that baggage was never reckoned with until and after the democratic revolution and after which we have seen successive conservative governments, including the current one, just brushing it aside most of the times or opposing any claims. But we have seen several times in the past where South Koreans were forced to reckon with certain individual atrocities committed by individual commanders of their forces. But there was no overall attempt or there was no national attempt, nationwide attempt to actually investigate the level of these atrocities on the ground. We still do not know the actual numbers of the people killed by South Korean forces or the level of damage that they committed. But obviously the current case and however it you know unravels with the appeals court and higher courts in the future, we still have the debate now becoming a national debate and part of the compensation debate that is already raging with Koreans against Japan, but also now with Vietnamese vis-a-vis South Koreans. Rightly said Anish, it is a move in the right direction, hopefully. With that, thank you so much for joining us today. And that's all we have for today. For more such stories, please visit peoplesdispatch.org. You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.