The UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) unanimously appointed Saudi Arabia to chair its 69th session in 2025. Abdulaziz Alwasil, the Saudi ambassador to the UN, was elected on March 27 to represent his country. Being chair of the CSW means that Saudi Arabia pivots the political, economic, civil, and social prerogatives of women inside the Commission. In addition, they are the leading actor with the role of highlighting pressing issues for women and girls during conflict. Various human rights advocates have criticized the controversial decision. In particular, the Amnesty International Deputy Director deemed it abysmal. Human Rights Watch (HRW) also warned the UN on its decision to appoint a country that systematically discriminates against women and persecutes rights activists. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that, at the UN level, countries with poor human rights records have been appointed to chair forums promoting social rights.
The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women aims to include, in its agenda, global policy documents of countries around the world on gender equality and empowerment. According to official statements, the government is in line with these goals, after what it describes as important achievements that have been achieved to empower women’s rights. In particular, authorities hail the 2022 Personal Status Law as a milestone for progress and equality for women.
However, Saudi Arabia systematically promotes well-established gender discrimination laws and portrays them as progressive. For example, the 2022 Personal Status Law has been criticized for perpetuating the male guardianship system and codifying discrimination against women. The law fails to provide adequate protection for women from domestic violence and makes them vulnerable to psychological abuse. Men often have the right to limit financial support to their wives if disputes arise. Therefore, the law codifies (and protects) men’s guardianship powers in Saudi Arabia. Male guardianship is a system in which women depend on a man who has the authority to make a range of crucial decisions.
However, this is not the only critical aspect of women’s discrimination in Saudi Arabia. For years, the Kingdom has arrested women’s rights activists who campaigned to end of the male guardianship system. One of the famous cases is that of Manahil Al-Otaibi, who was a victim of enforced disappearance and was imprisoned because of her support for women’s rights on social media platforms. However, women demanding human rights reforms and others who were imprisoned, are facing travel bans and are unable to speak freely.
In conclusion, ADHRB condemns the United Nations and the voting countries for allowing such ridiculous decisions. Such choices damage the reputation of the United Nations and show that Member States are using biopolitical considerations that go beyond the overall goals of the organization. For this reason, ADHRB asks: How can human rights bodies have credibility when allowing such controversial decisions?
Seventy-six million metric tons of oil reserves are located in the Arab Gulf, constituting around 66% of the global reserves. Oil represents a prominent source of income in the Middle East, proven by the increased production during the last decades. From 1980, oil production passed from 11 million barrels per day to 18 million. The two biggest producers in the region are Saudi Arabia and UAE, respectively, making 39 and 14 percent of the total share. Various studies show that the industry causes significant methane emissions, contributing to global warming and other emissions that create significant health risks for citizens. Notably, on 28 November 2023, the BBC warned that toxic gas in the Middle East is putting millions at risk. In particular, the article showed how oil production was spreading gases over hundreds of kilometers in the region, possibly jeopardizing the health of the residents.
Most GCC countries have appointed Commissions or National Councils to preserve the environment and control the health risks associated with oil production. The leading producer (Saudi Arabia) has also committed to contributing to the Paris Agreement through different measures. To mention some, installing 50 gigawatts of renewable and nuclear energy can reduce the country’s emissions during production.
Nonetheless, these measures are still insufficient to mitigate the negative impacts of energy production in the GCC. In an article from December 2023, Human Rights Watch (HRW) highlighted that exposure to particulate matter (PM 2.5) in the UAE was eight times higher than what the World Health Organization (WHO) considers safe. Based on the estimates of the organization, approximately 1872 people have died in 2023 due to outdoor air pollution. The BBC also showed that the GCC countries, due to gas flaring (burning of waste gas during oil drilling), endanger the lives of millions in the region. In particular, pollutants from flaring include PM 2.5 and Ozone NO2, which, at high levels, have been linked to strokes, cancer, asthma, and heart diseases.
Alarmingly, UAE national oil company Adnoc, run by Sultan al-Jaber, committed 20 years ago to end gas flaring; nonetheless, satellite assessment shows that it occurs daily. Other states, like Iraq and Kuwait, analyzed in the BBC study, declined to comment. On the other hand, oil companies like Saudi Aramco and Shell said they are working to reduce the practice.
The urgency in mitigating the negative impact of oil production in the Middle East has been vividly stressed. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David R. Boyd, recently commented: ‘’ Big oil companies and states in the Middle East are violating the human rights of millions of people by failing to tackle air pollution from fossil fuels.’’. ADHRB also expresses concerns over the health of millions of residents in the region. Acknowledging that respiratory diseases are the leading cause of death in the area, our organization considers that new positive steps should be taken. In particular, ADHRB points out the pronouncements of the Human Rights Committee in view of the case Portillo Caceres v. Paraguay, affirming that states must protect individual degradation under Article 6 of the ICCPR (Right to Life). With these aspects in mind, we stress the need for accountability for human rights violations, which, in this instance, are challenging due to political considerations and the dependency of the West on Middle East oil.
Human rights campaigner who founded the charity Redress following his unlawful imprisonment and torture in Saudi Arabia
Questions were asked in the House of Commons after Keith Carmichael disappeared into a Saudi Arabian jail in November 1981. His case was repeatedly raised by MPs and peers as news of his brutal mistreatment filtered out. It was not until he was released without charge two and half years later, however, that the extent of the torture he had endured became public knowledge.
Carmichael, who has died aged 90, was held in solitary confinement for three months, deprived of food and sleep, beaten on his knees and feet, sexually assaulted, shackled in leg irons, suffered a fractured spine and detained in rat-infested cells. He was also threatened with crucifixion and electrocution if he did not confess to numerous crimes (including leaving Saudi Arabia illegally, spying and criticising the royal family), which he refused to do.
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) participated in the 55th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, held from 26 February and 5 April 2024.
During these sessions, the organization delivered seven oral interventions under five items, shedding light on various human rights violations in Bahrain, Kuwait, and occupied Palestinian territories.
ADHRB delivered five interventions related to the human rights situation in Bahrain under items 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. Among these, two interventions under items 4 and 9 highlighted the Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the American immunity granted to it, as well as discrimination against the Bidoon community in Kuwait and the violations they face.
Item 3
Under Item 3, ADHRB delivered an intervention during the General Debate on 15 March 2024.
In her intervention, Bahraini activist Najah Yusuf drew attention to the recent escalation in Bahrain in summoning and arresting participants in pro-Palestine protests across the country, including more than 50 minors aged between 14 and 17. They were charged with crimes such as illegal assembly after being subjected to numerous violations. She pointed out that at least 29 children are facing harsh detention conditions, deprived of continuing their education, and subjected to mistreatment. Najah added that some minors were forced to confess to pre-prepared charges and denied family visits, including the case of the 17-year-old minor, Qasim Al-Sameea. The organization urged Bahrain to stop targeting children and minors, allowing them to reunite with their families and resume their education. ADHRB indicated that an impartial investigation should be initiated to address allegations of mistreatment. It urged the Council to pressure Bahrain to respect its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which it is a party.
Item 4
Under Item 4, ADHRB delivered two interventions on 21 March 21, 2024, during the General Debate.
In his intervention, activist Yusuf AlHoori drew the Council’s attention to the ongoing medical neglect suffered by elderly opposition leaders and human rights defenders in Bahraini prisons. Among them is the political prisoner Mr. Hasan Mushaima, who suffers from cancer, diabetes, and other serious diseases, facing life-threatening medical neglect. Yusuf also highlighted the case of the prominent human rights defender and opposition leader, Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, who suffers from post-polio syndrome and many other serious chronic diseases. He has endured prolonged solitary confinement and has been deprived of medical appointments, treatment, and crutches, forcing him to endure a solid food hunger strike for 1000 days. ADHRB urged the UN Human Rights Council to pressure Bahrain to immediately release these defenders and opposition leaders before it’s too late.
In its second intervention under Item 4, ADHRB expressed deep concern over the United States’ ongoing support for countries with poor human rights records. This is notably evident in its continued support for the ongoing war in Gaza, despite the International Court of Justice’s warnings to Israel to prevent genocide. This support also extends to countries suppressing their citizens’ rejection of this war and their governments’ adherence to decisions related to the actions of the United States, as is the case in Bahrain. ADHRB pointed out the suppression campaigns led by Bahrain against citizens expressing their dissenting opinions regarding their government’s involvement in the American-led coalition against Yemeni forces in the Red Sea, with hundreds of participants in peaceful protests being arrested, including many children. ADHRB questioned the continued US support for countries with poor human rights records driven by political motives, asking: How can we ensure accountability prevails over political considerations in addressing human rights violations?
Item 6
Under Item 6 during the General Debate, ADHRB delivered an intervention on 26 March 2024.
During its intervention, it raised concerns about the seriousness of Bahrain’s commitment to implementing the promised reforms according to the UPR recommendations. Despite Bahrain’s pledge to ensure accountability for torture victims, eliminate religious discrimination, release all prisoners of conscience, and protect the right to freedom of expression and assembly, it continues its restrictive policies. Victims of torture-obtained confessions remain imprisoned and face horrific forms of physical and psychological torture, while the perpetrators remain unpunished. ADHRB called on the international community to pressure Bahrain to fulfill its pledge to implement the UPR recommendations, halt systematic human rights violations, and achieve genuine reform in the country.
Item 8
During the General Debate on 27 March 2024, ADHRB expressed deep concern over Bahrain’s ongoing violations of religious freedoms, particularly targeting Shia citizens, which contravene the Vienna Declaration and contradict official claims. Since 2011, Bahrain has continuously restricted the rights of Shia citizens, closing mosques and disrupting Friday prayers. Security forces deploy military vehicles near Shia mosques to confront protests expressing solidarity with Palestinians facing Israeli attacks. Bahraini authorities persistently refuse to broadcast Shia-specific events on government-owned media. Religious leaders, such as Sheikh Mohamed Sanqour, face sectarian-based summons and arrests, charged with “insulting authorities” for refusing curriculum changes to satisfy Israel. Others faced arrest, like historian Jasim AlAbbas, who was charged with incitement and threatening civil peace, for discussing the historical context of Islam and Shiism in Bahrain. ADHRB condemned the restrictions imposed on Shia religious practices and urged Bahrain to end sectarian discrimination and uphold its commitments to respect and protect religious freedoms.
Item 9
In its first intervention under Item 9, ADHRB raised the discrimination faced by the Bahraini people in their right to protest for demanding their rights or in solidarity with humanitarian causes. In its intervention, Activist Ebtisam AlSaegh said, “Today we live in a country with a million masks on the lists of constitutional laws, citizens’ rights, and human rights standards. There is a stark contrast between what is written on paper and what the people see and experience on the ground.” She pointed out that prisons are filled with prisoners of conscience on charges and cases unrelated to reality. Discrimination continues regarding the right to protest and express opinions among the people and opposition, resulting in the arrest of dozens, including children under the age of 18. This discrimination also resulted in the political isolation of a significant number of citizens, depriving the majority of the people of the right to peaceful protest. This constitutes a violation of all international standards recognized by the Bahraini authorities, yet these standards are not applied in reality. ADHRB emphasized the need to empty prisons of all prisoners and allow the exercise of the right to protest.
In another intervention under Item 9, ADHRB highlighted the ongoing suffering of the Bidoon community in Kuwait. Although the law claims to provide means for Bidoon to obtain citizenship, the naturalization procedures are unclear, and citizenship and residency matters are not subject to judicial review. The Bidoon are deprived of property rights or equal access to services like Kuwaiti citizens, unable to obtain civil documents, denied the right to education, healthcare, and employment, and also deprived of their right to protest. ADHRB urged the Council to pressure Kuwait to end this racial discrimination, respect its human rights obligations, and ensure the basic rights of the Bidoon community, including their right to freedom of opinion, expression, and assembly. It also urged the Kuwaiti government to adhere to the Durban Convention, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons,, and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Through its participation in the 55th session of the Human Rights Council, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain succeeded in drawing attention to the ongoing human rights violations in Bahrain, despite the authorities’ repeated promises of reform and attempts to whitewash its human rights record. It also pointed out that the most serious issue facing political activists, especially opposition leaders and human rights defenders, is the deliberate medical neglect policy. The organization also drew attention to restrictions imposed on freedom of expression, including the suppression of marches supporting Palestinians. Additionally, ADHRB had positions regarding the American immunity for Israeli crimes in Gaza. and as part of its coverage of human rights issues in the Gulf region, it drew attention to what the Bidoon community is suffering as a result of being deprived of the right to citizenship.
A new documentary film explores a drawn-out court battle involving the UK government and a campaign group which tried to stop it selling arms to human rights-abusing Saudi Arabia, which has terrorised Yemen for years.
Don’t Buy A Bomb: calling out Britain and Saudi Arabia
Demilitarise Education (dED_UCATION) has released a new documentary film directed by Eva McQuade, following the inner workings of a High Court of Justice appeal.
Since the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen began in 2015, at least 154,000Yemeni citizens have been killed as a result of military action, with British-made weaponry playing a central role. If international humanitarian law does not permit assaults on non-combatants, then how can the government justify its complicity in these war crimes?
The film offers the opportunity to engage with the issue from multiple perspectives, ranging from Erin Alcock and Dearbhla Minogues – solicitors on the case – to Amina Atiq, a British-Yemeni poet who uses her art as a means of activism.
The film combines carefully curated archive footage, which acts as visible evidence of the atrocities committed, with expertise from professionals in the field. In doing so, we see that what Liz Truss called ‘isolated incidents’ are, actually, mass scale arms deals deeply embedded within ‘diplomatic’ relationships between the UK and its allies.
Feinstein: Britain has propped up Saudi assault on Yemen
Contributor to the film Andrew Feinstein is executive director of Shadow World Investigations. He said:
BAE, through the British state, provides significant numbers of advisers to the Saudi air force… the planes that are involved in most of the airstrikes over Yemen and a lot of the ordinance that is released from those planes, the bombs, the missiles that rain down on innocent Yemenis.
After the unjust dismissal of CAAT’s case by the High Court of Justice in June 2023, this documentary is more important than ever to ensure that the government’s continuous evasion of the law is held under scrutiny. In alignment with what Fallon eloquently expresses above, the documentary is a necessity to not only inform but inspire action through enforcing transparency.
Katie Fallon, advocacy manager at CAAT, said:
This film is so important as it shows that campaigners and members of the public can take action, speak truth to power, and disrupt the cycles of violence that our government commits us to.
Nine years after the bombardment of Yemen began, in 2024 the UK is not only bombing Yemen directly, but is complicit in Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and selling arms to Israel again in violation of UK law. In the face of so much horror, the global public has spoken out in our thousands, millions, and billions, standing in solidarity with each other to build a peaceful and just future.
Without such a film, the judicial system can escape public accountability in its failure to enforce national and international law.
Yemen will ‘persist in its pursuit of justice’ against Saudi Arabia and UK
Cindy Sasha produced the film. She said:
When I learnt about CAAT’s court case in 2021, I knew this was an important story to be told. Film is a great medium to allow us to document the truth and share it with the world. This film exposes our corrupt justice system and how power is above the law and how the law chooses profit over people.
By making the film, dED_UCATION has solidified the moment in history, encouraging audience engagement and political action. It is a tangible story in which Western imperialism, the military-industrial complex, and neocolonialism interact. However, it offers hope in the way of re-imagining a future in which citizens refuse to sit back and allow their government to commit war crimes.
The documentary serves to pay respect to the people of Yemen, through making their suffering visible, thus providing an opportunity for solidarity.
As poet and activist Amina Atiq summed up:
The film is greater than a political disagreement, it calls for moral and ethical responsibility from our British Government. The arms trade between Britain and Saudi Arabia has only led to the tragic loss of lives in Yemen. We will continue to revisit this historic relationship of arms as unlawful, inhumane and it is a crime. Our Yemen will persist in its pursuit of justice.
You can watch the film on dED_UCATION’s YouTube channel below:
The draft of Saudi Arabia’s first penal code was leaked in July 2022. The text has been the subject of various allegations, which Saudi Arabia promptly denied. However, Amnesty International, which first denounced the code’s flaws, ensures that several Saudi legal experts have confirmed its authenticity. More recently, Amnesty International shared its analysis of the draft code with Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers and the Saudi Arabian Human Rights Commission, who stated that the text is still under legislative review. Nonetheless, the draft leak poses serious concerns over the premises of the Crown Prince to improve human rights standards. In particular, some provisions allow for measures criminalizing defamation; it provides for the death penalty for minors and gives too broad power to judges to interpret Sharia law.
Indeed, codifying Saudi Arabia’s penal code is an opportunity to better define crimes and check whether the punishments align with international law standards. However, the leaked version lacks a well-defined legislative framework (crimes and punishments can be broadly interpreted). Also, it criminalizes acts protected under international law with the use of corporal punishment and the death penalty.
The penalty for premeditated murder was included in the draft code, stipulating that it is punishable by seven to fifteen years. However, the text left significant legal loopholes that allowed judges to interpret the circumstances of the crime and consequently inflict the death penalty. For example, judges can impose the death penalty in cases where the perpetrator committed other ‘serious crimes.’ In addition, for hadd crimes, which the Quran deems as serious crimes, the draft code allows for execution. However, included in this category of crimes, there are some offenses like robbery and drinking alcohol that are considered minor under international law and consequently should not be punished with the death penalty. Finally, the most concerning aspect of the draft code was setting the age of criminal responsibility at seven years, at which time a person can also be punished with the death sentence. On this matter, The Commission on the Rights of the Child (CRC) repeatedly stated that the age of criminal responsibility is 12 years old and that the use of the death penalty against minors is prohibited.
Another issue present in the draft of the penal code for which ADHRB has often advocated is the significant discretionary power of the judges. Even with the possible presence of a written code, judges would use discretion to interpret Sharia, possibly violating human rights law standards. ADHRB expresses particular concern over the interpretation of ta’zir, which, following the Sharia, should not reach the level of punishment for hudud crimes. Nonetheless, in Saudi Arabia, there have been examples in which judges could sentence individuals to death by using broad interpretative powers.
ADHRB acknowledges that drafting a penal code for Saudi Arabia would benefit the judiciary by defining a framework for its operation. However, the draft code raises serious concerns over the Crown’s political premises and the reliability of the laws. For these reasons, ADHRB recommends that Saudi Arabia amend the draft code significantly and ensure that its text aligns with the international obligations adopted.
South Korea’s rapid rise as a defence manufacturer is resulting in increasingly tougher challenges to its export policy. Although China might be Asia’s top defence exporter, it is actually South Korea, a nation of 51.8 million citizens that lives under constant threat from its northern neighbour, which is dominating sales of Asian military equipment to […]
Fifa and the presumptive hosts face significant challenges over human rights, worker protections and the scale of construction
Saudi Arabia will host the 2034 World Cup. We know this, despite the fact that Fifa’s bidding process does not finish until the end of 2024. But with 10 years until the tournament there is still much we don’t know. Some of these issues are important, such as the time of year in which the games will be played, but others are more significant still. With the power of the global football community to influence outcomes perhaps at its peak, here are three key areas of uncertainty:
The story of Abdulrahman al-Khalidi has recently caught the media’s attention, along with campaigns requesting his release. Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Article 19 promptly warned Bulgarian authorities of the risk the activist would face if deported to Saudi Arabia. This case has already highlighted negligence by Sofia authorities, violating the human rights of the Saudi citizen by putting him under administrative detention. Taking into account this violation, there exists a significant risk that Bulgaria would accept to deport him to Saudi Arabia, likely resulting in more violations, including unfair trials and torture.
Al-Khalidi has been a human rights activist for more than ten years, expressing his dissent against the treatment of prisoners in Saudi Arabia. Due to the Arab Kingdom’s repression, he decided to leave the country in 2013. Initially, he spent a period of exile in Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, and in 2021, he entered the European Union (EU).On 16 November 2021, the activist applied for asylum in Bulgaria, expressing the risks of human rights violations if he was returned to Saudi Arabia. The ‘’Bulgarian State Agency for Refugees’’ refused his application, stating that no risk of persecution exists in the Arab state in light of the measures taken to improve democracy. Al-Khalidi challenged this pronouncement, appealing to the Administrative Supreme Court, which sent the case back to lower courts. Nonetheless, on 7 February 2024, after his asylum state was rejected, the Bulgarian National Security Agency issued a deportation order. Enforcing this order would put under serious risk the life of the Saudi activist in light of other cases in which Saudi Arabia persecuted their citizens abroad.
Already in 2016, ADHRB, with its INTERPOL Deletion Request Programme, removed a wrongful requestion of deportation for an individual from Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is famous for enforcing transnational repression against its citizens, with the most famous case being the killing of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Other cases are those of Dina Ali Lasloom, who attempted to flee her family to Australia due to the abuses of her husband. In that case, she was stopped by security officers and carried away in a hotel with duct tape in her mouth. Eventually, she was deported to Saudi Arabia, where she was put in a detention facility for women under 30. Finally, also Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun was persecuted by the Saudi government at the request of her abusive father and brother.
Considering these circumstances, Bulgaria must adhere to its commitments under international, EU and domestic law to respect the principle of non-refoulement. In particular, as expressed by the Special Rapporteur on torture, Mary Lawlor, not respecting the principle in the context of such a repressive country like Saudi Arabia can put the life of Al-Khalidi under serious threat. Furthermore, the principle of non-refoulment is a core element in international human rights law that some scholars address as jus cogens. To conclude, these cases highlight the need for more severe countermeasures against transnational repression, representing a threat to human rights, with particular attention on misusing the red notices and diffusions of INTERPOL, a channel too often used by autocratic states.
The Gulf remains a major destination for migrant workers, primarily from southern and Southeast Asia. Often, migrants from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and numerous other countries travel to the Gulf States to work in low-skilled labour sectors. ADHRB, along with other organisations, reported the systemic discrimination these minorities face, including access to healthcare, threats of withholding of passports, physical or verbal abuse or non-payment of wages. Nonetheless, one of the most persistent and concerning discrimination is the disproportionality when it comes to the death penalty. The number of migrants who are killed by judicial execution is grossly disproportional to the size of the population living in the GCC. ADHRB recognises that this disproportionality lies in multiple factors, rendering the migrant workers an exceptionally vulnerable community.
The vulnerability of this community depends on being subject to power imbalance and often exploitation. ADHRB acknowledges that this condition affects them before and after arriving in the Gulf, causing disproportionality in sentencing to be an issue of a larger scope. Usually, migrant workers come from rural areas, have limited literacy and become dependent on migrant brokers in their original countries. These figures often manipulate migrant workers, tricking them into smuggling drugs into the Gulf, with the highest percentage coming from Pakistan. This founding issue, combined with the flaws of the GCC judicial systems, socioeconomic disadvantage, language barriers and discrimination, cause immigrants to be the primary victims of sentencing and death penalties.
In Bahrain, despite rhetoric of reform, death sentences in the last decade rose by over 600%. The data gathered between 2011 and 2021 shows a clear pattern of discrimination against foreign nationals in the context of the death penalty. Mainly, Bangladeshi nationals are disproportionately represented in this category. In addition, Reprieve informs that in contrast to Bahraini nationals, no pardons or commutations were offered to Bangladeshi nationals. In these circumstances, the decision of 2018 to allow death sentences for non-lethal charges (drug offences) represents a noteworthy backwards move for human rights in the country.
Moving to Saudi Arabia, the situation is even more concerning, considering that it has the third-largest migrant population in the world. Generally, foreign nationals are particularly vulnerable to due process and fair trial violations when it comes to the death penalty. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised this point about a disproportionate number of foreign nationals facing the penalty in Saudi Arabia. From 2010 to 2021, Saudi Arabia has executed a total of 490 foreign nationals, with some nationalities overrepresenting their proportional representation in the total population. In particular, Pakistani nationals, making up 5% of the total population, represent 13.19% of the total number of executions. Furthermore, their sentence is flawed by a criminal justice system discrimination characterised by denied access to interpretation, legal representation or consular assistance.
To conclude, the disproportionality in sentences against foreign nationals represents an issue that needs to be tackled at the national and transnational levels because of its characteristics. Many of the circumstances by which the death penalties were handed are related to the abusive functioning of the kafala system, exacerbated by a total lack of consular support from sending states. There is a significant correlation between citizenship and low class that causes migrant workers to be victims of exploitation. For this reason, ADHRB deems that both sending states and Gulf ones must take measures to stop the abuse against migrant workers, ultimately exemplified in the disproportionate sentencing against them.
Recommendations for sending states:
Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
Intensify the efficiency of consular offices for representing nationals working abroad.
Initiate diplomatic exchanges with Arab countries to find countermeasures against human trafficking (including new treaties).
Protect the nationals, especially the ones coming from lower classes, who are subject to human trafficking.
Recommendation for Bahrain and Saudi Arabia:
Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
Abolish the Kafala system, which, through its sponsorship system, causes migrant workers to be subject to human trafficking.
Cease using the death penalty arbitrarily.
Improve the quality of the trial, including legal representation, language barrier, and assumption of innocence.
Provide adequate socio-economic measures to ensure foreign workers can afford legal representation or pay blood money.
End the discrimination against foreign nationals in the application of the laws.
Publish a moratorium for abolishing death sentences for drug-related crimes, which enhances the risks for migrant workers who are victims of human trafficking.
Respect the pronouncing in different international law cases to ensure enhanced due process and fair trial rights for foreign nationals (recognising the range of barriers they face in the criminal system).
The US singer has been called out by human rights activists for hosting a summit and performing on stage in the repressive state
Performer Alicia Keys projects a powerful position on women’s rights, hosting a regular Women to Women summit and posting inspirationally on Instagram on Friday for International Women’s Day. But the singer-songwriter’s message is undermined for some by the revelation that she is hosting the third edition of her summit this weekend in Saudi Arabia.
The American performer and her guests, including Pharrell Williams, best known for his worldwide hit Happy, are to discuss “how women are pushing the culture forward in Saudi Arabia and around the world”, she has announced, before the get-together in the coastal city of Jeddah.
Global Voices has released a special coverage called Empowering voices: Women in politics, which explores the state of women’s political participation around the world.
Human Rights First referred to a new report reveals that WHRDs face increasing harassment and threats from a global movement against gender equality and LGBTQI+ rights. The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, a leading feminist women’s rights organization, released Hope and Resistance Go Together: The State of Women Human Rights Defenders 2023, a report that found discouraging growth in harassment of WHRDs. The foundation surveyed 458 women’s and queer rights activists and interviewed 25 activists representing WHRDs from 67 countries affected by violence or conflict.
They found that 75% reported facing harassment for their activism, a 15% increase from two years ago, and 25% of respondents have received death threats. Most harassment comes from government authorities, but increased harassment from far-right groups and anti-gender equality actors is also driving these startling statistics. Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) across the world face resistance and violence. In 2022, at least 401 HRDs were killed for their peaceful work. But some of the obstacles facing WHRDs are distinct. https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/recognizing-women-human-rights-defenders-on-international-womens-day/
Human Rights Watch on 7 March carried a piece by Macarena Sáez who says inter alia:
On this International Women’s Day, we march for the one in three women who experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. We cheer for countries like Argentina, Colombia, and Ireland that value our autonomy to choose to be pregnant and have legalized access to safe abortion, while protesting that abortion is still or again illegal in many places, including US states like Alabama and Texas. At the same time, we march to honor the women who marched before us, like the Mexican women who organized the first feminist congress in 1916 to push for family law reforms and their right to vote, and the Nigerians who waged their “Women’s War” against colonization and patriarchal laws in 1929. Their struggles sadly mirror the reality of many women around the world today – especially women who belong to historically marginalized groups – who continue to rally against violence and abuse.
Fearing the power of women’s solidarity and collective actions, governments have stifled women’s speech through restrictions on movement, censorship, smear campaigns, and criminal prosecutions. In highly repressive contexts, like Afghanistan and Iran, women suffer arbitrary detention, and even enforced disappearance and torture, for their activism. Meanwhile, social media companies have not done enough to protect women from online violence, chilling women’s freedom of expression on and offline. These barriers make it hard for women’s equality to become reality. Gender justice requires an enabling environment in which women can express themselves, speak and spread their political views, and participate in political and public life. Instead of repressing or tolerating the repression of women, governments should recognize our collective actions – and consequent power – and enshrine our rights in laws, policies, and practice. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/07/womens-voices-have-power-drive-change]
On 8 March 8, 2024 Almyra Luna Kamilla and Rosalind Ratana opined in IMHO on “Navigating the storms of repression: The resilience of young women rights defenders in Asia”
In recent years, Asia has been witnessing rising authoritarianism and shrinking civic space. Among those in the frontlines of resistance are young women human rights defenders. As we celebrate International Women’s Day, let us demand for an enabling world where women human rights defenders can continue their noble pursuits without fear of reprisals.
In Thailand, the royal defamation law is being excessively used to silence criticisms against the monarchy. Meanwhile in Sri Lanka, economic and political mismanagement has sparked peaceful protests that are met with violence and intimidation. The fate of Asia’s political climate hangs by a thread as elections are held across many countries, including Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, South Korea, and Pakistan. Now more than ever, governments across the region are finding ways to solidify their power, putting an even tighter grip on civil society to the detriment of democracy and people’s fundamental rights and freedoms.
Despite such challenges, many are courageously speaking out and taking collective action to reclaim power for the people. This includes young women human rights defenders – or Youth WHRDs – who are claiming space to call out human rights violations and to demand accountability from oppressive governments. [https://www.rappler.com/voices/imho/young-women-rights-defenders-asia/]
The Alliance for Human Rights in Afghanistan(a coalition of 9 major NGOs) urgently appealed to the international community to significantly bolster its support and actively safeguard the human rights of Afghan women and girls, including Afghan women human rights defenders who face persecution for their peaceful campaigns for rights and basic freedoms.
In 2023, the Taliban further intensified its oppressive policies toward women, girls, the LGBTIQ+ community, and religious minorities. Afghan women and girls have seen their rights and prospects increasingly curtailed, from greater enforcement of restrictions on education – including a ban on girls attending secondary schools and universities – to intensifying exclusion of women from political and public life. Women have been banned from a growing list of forms of paid employment, and economic barriers, such as the ban on women registering organisations and undergoing vocational training, have contributed to a sharp decline in women’s participation in the labour market, impeding their right to make a living. This exacerbates financial insecurity, widens gender disparities, and further confines women to the private sphere. Lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women face severe threats, including torture, sexual violence, forced marriage, and death. Victims of gender violence, including those who identify as such, lack minimal legal and practical support. Obstacles to healthcare and education have exacerbated poverty and vulnerability among women and girls. In 2023, new discriminatory restrictions imposed by the Taliban included the closure of all beauty salons, blocking women from overseas travel for study, mandating female health workers in some areas to have a male chaperone while travelling or at work, and prohibiting women from entering a famous national park.
The oppressive environment extends to female activists, NGO leaders and journalists. Notable cases include the arrests of women’s rights activists Neda Parwani and Zholia Parsi, the enforced disappearance and subsequent discovery of Manizha Seddiqi in Taliban custody to date, the arrest of Matiullah Wesa, founder of an NGO advocating for girls’ education rights, and the arbitrary detainment of Ahmad Fahim Azimi and Seddiqullah Afghan—both dedicated girls’ education activists, among many others. Journalists reporting on the Taliban, facing arrests and threats, equally illustrate the difficulties encountered by the media, particularly women, when covering crimes against women or advocating for women’s rights. Collectively, these cases underscore the near-total denial of freedom of expression, gender equality, or any other internationally recognized right in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Amid this growing oppression, segregation and fear, Afghan women human rights defenders have urged the international community to exert greater pressure on the Taliban. They call on international bodies to involve Afghan women in all negotiations with the Taliban and to facilitate direct meetings between women and the de facto authorities to address their concerns. Afghan women have also stressed the importance of advocacy for women’s rights by external actors based on the voices and realities of women inside Afghanistan. They call for coordinated efforts between organisations inside and outside the country to defend the rights of Afghan women and girls.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, called on the Taliban to release women human rights defenders as the world marks International Women’s Day.
I reiterate my appeal to the Taliban to respect all the human rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, including to education, work, freedom of movement and expression, and their cultural rights, and I urge the meaningful and equal participation of Afghan women and girls in all aspects of public life. I call on the Taliban to immediately and unconditionally release all those who have been arbitrarily detained for defending human rights, especially the rights of women and girls.”
On International Women’s Day, the a group of NGOs (ALQST for Human Rights, Amnesty International, CIVICUS, European Saudi Organization for Human Rights (ESOHR), Front Line Defenders, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR),MENA Rights Group, Salam for Democracy and Human Rights) renewed their call on Saudi Arabian authorities to release all women human rights defenders (WHRDs), women’s rights activists and their supporters who are detained in contravention of international human rights standards. The organisations further call on Saudi authorities to lift travel bans imposed on WHRDs and their relatives, and to abolish the male guardianship system. [https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/civil-society-reiterates-their-call-on-saudi-authorities-to-release-jailed-womens-rights-activists/]
The President of Georgia awarded severl with mesla of honor: co-founder of “Safari” organization Babutsa Pataraia, human rights defender Ana Arganashvili, founders of “National Network for Protection from Violence”: Eliso Amirejibi and Nato Shavlakadze and founder of “Vedzeb” organization Tamar Museridze.
Food security is described by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) as ‘’ all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. In addition, food security is structured in four pillars, namely: 1) Availability (people having consistent sources of food), 2) Access (people have sufficient resources to purchase food), 3) Stability (people can access food that remains at a stable price during time) 4) Utilization (people know how to distribute food). Currently, among the Arab countries, the GCC is considered more food secure according to the Global Food Security Index. However, some long-standing issues remain present due to the national supply strategies, possibly causing a disruption in food security in the long term.
The main issue is the region’s lack of control over its food sources, making it highly import-dependent. GCC countries import about 85% of their food, including 93% of cereals, 62% of meat and 56% of vegetables. Under these circumstances, a disruption in the supply chain, such as a pandemic, would leave the countries vulnerable to shortages. To minimise possible shocks, GCC governments have launched food intervention measures. For example, countries like UAE, Qatar and Kuwait have adopted national food strategies to boost domestic production and diversify import sources. Arguably, these steps helped preserve the region’s short-term food security without tackling more long-term issues.
Firstly, being highly dependent on imports makes the region food secure but non-food self-sufficient. In this sense, in case of a rise of protectionist policies, they would be vulnerable to price and supply shocks. Secondly, the import strategy would need to be sufficient to bear the costs of population growth. In 2005, the total population in the GCC area was 25.8 million, compared to 56.65 million in 2018. In light of this growth, it is questionable whether the availability or accessibility of food can be maintained at acceptable levels. Thirdly, relying so heavily on import strategies undermines the future adverse effects of climate change on food availability. In this sense, the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) has forecasted that crop yields will fall by more than 10% by 2030 and at a similar rate by 2050. Consequently, in light of possible droughts or floods, the international market would shift to protectionist policies to ensure the presence of emergency food supplies.
Furthermore, another possible security risk could hinder food availability in the short term. A relevant aspect of this analysis is where these countries obtain their food supplies. Most of the imports pass several of the most important maritime chokepoints. The main one is the Strait of Hormuz, where any disruption would negatively affect UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia receives supplies from the Mandab Strait at the entrance to the Red Sea. Considering the current political frictions in the Red Sea and the ongoing political conflict among states of the Strait of Hormuz.
To conclude, it is possible to affirm that GCC countries have adopted logical but risky strategies to cope with food insecurity. Generally, it is considered that the domestic production of food in the area is complex due to the hot desert climate, which causes scarce water resources and poor soils. Consequently, it will be essential to understand if GCC countries will adjust to the overarching factors contributing to food security and ascertain that possible national food production policies in the GCC will not cause environmental damage (e.g. Rangeland deterioration in Saudi Arabia). Most importantly, food security strategies will be tailored to human rights necessities, meaning that the food supply is based on population growth.
The crackdown on online expression by the Saudi Arabian government has been reported extensively. In 2014, Human Rights Watch (HRW) denounced Saudi prosecutors and judges for using vague expressions of terrorism to try Saudi citizens for peaceful tweets and social media activities. The counter-terrorism legislation was criminalising activity harming the public order, religious values, and the sanctity of private life. In 2017, Saudi Arabia decided to amend the terms of this legislation by promulgating a new counter-terrorism law. However, the law currently remains taunted by extreme repression of freedom of expression and by a vague definition of terrorism, which was criticised in the latest cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Saudi Arabia.
In particular, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and Switzerland have pointed out the flaws of counter-terrorism legislation in the 2024 UPR cycle. These countries requested Saudi Arabia more transparency in their definition of terrorism, in line with international human rights law standards. At the same time, these countries highlight the drawbacks of legislation that ideally grants safety to online platforms, which instead represses citizens’ freedom of expression. After the replacement of the 2014 counterterrorism law, the safety of the media has not improved. Rather, Saudi Arabia enhances fear among its citizens by putting them at risk of high fines or years in prison.
Freedom House, an agency classifying the freedom of the web, defines the internet platforms of Saudi Arabia as not free, lacking the possibility to access content and with various violations of users’ rights. In addition, internet users face extensive censorship and surveillance, with authorities systematically blocking websites or removing content. News from 2023 also informs that Saudi authorities manipulate online information to give a positive image of the government and its policies. Nonetheless, the most alarming concern with the ‘’misuse’’ of public platforms is the risk of being harassed or prosecuted. During 2023, there have been different cases of courts handing people to prison for their peaceful online expression or activism.
Repeatedly, ADHRB denounced the escalated widespread use of antiterrorism and cybercrime laws to target human activists. Sentences, fines and travel have characterised repression in the absence of minimum standards of fair trials. Amnesty International reports that at least 15 people have been sentenced to between ten and forty-five years for their peaceful online activities. Salma al-Shebab, PhD student at the University of Leeds, recently saw her sentence increased in appeal to 34 years by the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC). Her sentence was caused by her support on Twitter for a women’s rights activist.
Overall, the counter-terrorism laws (including cybercrime) are highly repressive and put at risk the civil liberties of Saudi citizens. Concerns arise about broad definitions of terrorism in the national legislation, specifically when terrorism might include ‘’disturbing public order’’ or ‘’exposing national unity to danger’’. Furthermore, the courts have been accused of being bodies that report directly to the king, failing to separate the distinction between judiciary and executive. ADHRB is highly concerned about anti-terrorism laws in light of the failing premises of Saudi Arabia to amend its rules. Controlling Twitter and other public platforms risks further jeopardising human rights status in the Kingdom. ADHRB recommends states use their diplomatic platforms to convince Saudi Arabia to amend its counter-terrorism laws. In addition, it urges international bodies to initiate investigative mechanisms for countries repressing freedom on social media platforms. Finally, it reiterates civil society organisations’ relevance in denouncing human rights abuses.
Saudi Arabia has recently received a review of its human rights records during the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review on 22 January 2024. In this instance, it has received 35 recommendations on using the death penalty. Before this, in 2018, it had already received various recommendations on reforming the use of the death penalty for the gravest crimes or abolishing it. By that time, Prince Bin Salman and other officials repeatedly declared that Saudi Arabia intended to restrict the death penalty for non-lethal offences and to abolish it for children. However, in 2024, executions for drug-related crimes and children are still ongoing.
Among the 35 recommendations of the latest UPR, which generally recommends emitting a moratorium in light of abolishing the death penalty, there are specific ones that deal with substantive issues of the Saudi criminal law system. To mention some, Argentina recommends abolishing the death sentencing of minors, Belgium recommends using the death penalty only for the most severe crimes, and Germany recommends restricting the scope of the terrorist law. In this sense, ADHRB acknowledges that critical issues in the use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia depend on the flaws of the Saudi Criminal Law system and the lack of ratification of international human rights instruments.
Since 2018, at least 693 individuals have been executed, including charges for children and non-lethal offences. In this sense, there has been a failure to implement the recommendations from the last UPR. The issue could be evidenced by the failure to implement recommendations requesting more transparency, the continued misuse of the counterterrorism legislation, and the Juvenile Law’s unclarity.
In fact, in August 2018 Saudi Arabia promulgated the Juvenile Law that governs the treatment of children in the criminal system. The law provides that if a child commits an act punishable by death, the punishment would be substituted with a prison term of no more than ten years. However, Article 16 states that the law ‘’ shall not prejudice the prescribed provisions on hudud and qisas’’. With this provision, a child committing a mandatory or retributive offence would still be subject to the death penalty. Regarding the infliction of the death penalty against minors, REPRIEVE has calculated at least 15 cases between 2012 and 2022. Currently, nine charges of execution against children have been upheld by the Court of Appeal, posing them at imminent risk of execution in the instance the Supreme Court confirms the verdict.
Moving to other substantive issues of the Saudi criminal system, there are broad terrorism laws and the infliction of the death penalty for non-lethal charges. For these cases, the death penalty was applied in regular courts and the Specialized Criminal Courts (SCC). Officially, the death penalty for non-lethal charges is prohibited under the Arab Charter, of which Saudi Arabia is part. Arguably, customary law also prohibits the resort to the death penalty for non-gravest crimes. Nonetheless, in Saudi Arabia, the number of executions for non-lethal offences represented 66%. To mention one of the gravest cases, on 12 March 2022, in a mass trial, 58 men non-lethal charges. In addition, alarming information has arrived from the terrorist offences in the Kingdom. Among these, a notorious one has been the charge of the capital offence against Nasser al-Ghamdi for his activity on Twitter.
To conclude, the overall situation about the death penalty in Saudi Arabia is alarming. The despicable news of 2023, along with the false promises of the Crown, does not suggest positive developments for the next UPR cycle. This can be affirmed in the eye of substantive issues in the criminal system, the secrecy in emitting real numbers, and the questionable explanation for the charges. Considering this, the efforts to improve the functioning of the Saudi criminal system depend on different fronts. For the next UPR, ADHRB deems that Saudi Arabia shall codify its Penal Code and amend the actual laws, including the one directed to children and non-lethal charges. In addition, it requests the criminal system to provide transparent data over the country. Also, it encourages the countries participating in the UPR review to make tailored recommendations on issues connected with the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. This strategy helps to keep Saudi Arabia accountable for its substantive matters. Finally, it reiterates the importance of monitoring the death penalty status through civil society organisations.
Bringing the Russian authorities to international justice over the death of the opposition leader is difficult, but not impossible, says Prof Philip Leach, while Robert Frazer wonders what gives the west the right to judge Putin
The news of Alexei Navalny’s sudden death in an Arctic penal colony has led to numerous calls for the authorities in Russia to be held responsible (Western leaders point finger at Putin after Alexei Navalny’s death in jail, 16 February). They are certainly answerable according to human rights law, but achieving accountability against Russia has become even harder since its expulsion from the Council of Europe in 2022, as a consequence of the invasion of Ukraine. As a result, Navalny’s family cannot now petition the European court of human rights to get to the truth about his death.
Nevertheless, UN bodies such as the human rights committee still have jurisdiction over Russia, and cases already in the European court pipeline will be heard. Just last month, the court decided that the Russian government had a case to answer in a lawsuit brought by myself and others on behalf of Navalny, his Anti-Corruption Foundation and supporters in response to the punitive steps taken against them in 2019, including absurd criminal prosecutions on charges of money laundering, their designation as “foreign agents”, raids on their homes and offices, and the freezing of bank accounts.
On 22 January 2024, Saudi Arabia received a review of its human rights record in the country’s fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR). This mechanism is characterised by a peer review by other UN member states suggesting how to improve the respect of human rights in light of the country’s international obligations. The government has received 354 recommendations from 135 states calling for reforms in different sectors, including freedom of expression, abolishing the death penalty, protecting migrant workers’ rights and eliminating discrimination against women. Consequently, Saudi Arabia must notify the HRC of which recommendations it accepts or rejects during the 56th Human Rights Council (HRC) session in June-July 2024.
Among these recommendations, critical ones are about the freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia. The country has received 21 recommendations on the topic; for example, Ghana recommended promoting online and offline freedom of opinion according to international human rights law standards. In addition, Switzerland recommended to amend the Basic Law and the Anti-Cyber Crime Law to align with the global standards of freedom of expression.
On the other hand, the president of the Saudi Human Rights Commission (SHRC), Ms Hala al-Tuwaijri, declared that freedom of opinion and expression is enshrined in the constitution and that the claims of the individuals are duly examined in courts or by the SHRC itself. Also, the restrictions on media use follow the purpose of maintaining public order. In reality, authorities have discretionary powers to determine what speech harms the country. This is possible through over-restrictive interpretation of the Constitution and the role of special courts.
In this sense, an alarming trend has been the brutal repression of the use of social media. Amnesty International reports that in 2022, there have been at least 15 arrests. In addition, Saudi Arabia has hacked at least one social media company to obtain information about dissidents in the country unlawfully. The body responsible for the prosecutions is the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC), initially set up for terrorism cases. Progressively, the SCC started to emit vague anti-cybercrime laws that heavily repressed individuals’ freedom of expression. Adding upon this, the SCC has been documented to be responsible for human rights violations in every stage of their judicial process.
Another report by Amnesty International underlines that the repression of the freedom of expression affects more sectors of society. In particular, it is common for human rights defenders in exile to be subject to retaliation when speaking about the country’s violations. Generally, the main issue with freedom of expression is that Saudi Arabia depicts every expression not in line with the government’s actions as an act of terrorism. This argument is confirmed by the grossly unfair trial of Abdulla al-Derazi and Jalal Labbad in 2023. The accusations were flawed by false charges and forced confessions through torture.
The development of the freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia is deeply concerning. The Saudi Human Rights Commission (SHRC) often makes false promises about the functioning of the Saudi criminal system. In 2023, they declared that the government abolished the application of the death penalty for ta’zir crimes. In the meanwhile, Abdulla al-Derazi and Jalal Labbad were sentenced to the death penalty while being under eighteen. Under these premises, it is possible to say that the SHRC is merely a tool of the government to whitewash the human rights in the country. In addition, there are systematic strategies of repression under the disproportionate premise of maintaining state order and combating terrorism. Considering these critical issues, it is foreseeable to predict that new gross cases of violations of the freedom of expression will happen. The key areas to monitor and advocate are the working methods of the SCC and the request for reform of the anti-cybercrime law.
The upgraded Russian Komar 3M47-03E ship-based missile system was unveiled for the first time abroad at the World Defense Show 2024 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Russian media report. The system is equipped with both Igla-S MANPADS missiles and Ataka missiles, which makes it capable of combating not only various air attack weapons, but also […]
South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) announced that Saudi Arabia has signed an agreement procure 10 batteries of the KM-SAM Block II (KM-SAM II) medium-range air defence system worth up to US$3.2 billion. The deal was inked as early as November 2023 but was only made public following a meeting between South Korean President […]
Globally, the impact of climate-induced back draws and, ultimately, migrations can be witnessed extensively. This phenomenon is less prevalent in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). However, the recent statistics on climate change and the allocation of investments in natural resources in the Gulf can revert the trend. According to the Middle East Institute (MEI), the relationship between climate change and migration still needs to be studied extensively. Climate change in the Gulf is a topic that still needs to be tackled with an intersectional approach. GCC countries sponsor investment of billions of dollars in plans for developing renewable energy. However, reports show that these plans’ application, transparency, and effectiveness remain questionable. Consequently, concerns arise over a possible strategy of ‘’greenwashing’’ to appease the international community’s requests.
According to NASA, large parts of the Gulf region will become unavailable by 2050 due to the rising temperatures that may increase by 5 degrees by the end of this century. Climate change already has detrimental effects such as desertification, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and rising sea levels. Saudi Arabia has recently faced climate hazards, including floods caused by heavy rainfalls. In addition, according to the World Bank, by 2025, almost 100 million people in the MENA region will be exposed to high-level water stress. In this prospect, the absence of a regional cooperation mechanism will likely cause distress in the area.
Officially, all the Gulf countries have ratified the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) and the Paris Climate Agreement and have made official promises to mitigate the effects of climate change. Notably, five Gulf countries have set a net-zero emission plan to achieve by this century’s end. To tackle climate change, Gulf countries set up political institutions to draft policies on climate-related challenges.
On the other hand, concerns arise about the promises made by these countries. Firstly, they tackle climate change only with the Ministry of Environment. This approach fails to deal with the effect of climate change on cross-sectoral aspects of society, including human rights. Secondly, the policies proposed to tackle climate change are questionable. Often, they lack transparency, and when presented, they do not involve different sectors of society. Thirdly, the MEI Institute reports that even when regional plans are launched, they are often unsuccessful due to geopolitical tensions. Finally, it is legitimate to question the intentions of GCC countries regarding climate change. Notably, the former president of COP28, Sultan Al-Jaber, stated that no evidence exists between climate change and fossil fuels. This declaration collides with years of scientific research and probably underlines a willingness to maintain supremacy in the fossil fuel market.
From a human rights perspective, the situation in the Gulf is especially concerning for different reasons. Firstly, there is an incumbent issue with natural resources like water that will likely trigger displacement. Secondly, the Gulf is the destination of millions of migrants who each year suffer the burden of rising temperatures. From this overview, the Gulf will be subject to seasonal migrations of the wealthiest classes. On the other hand, the lowest classes and migrants will likely suffer from a lack of natural resources (including food) due to the rising temperatures. In this sense, regional courts have pointed out the interrelation between human rights and climate change and possible backdraws on the right to life. ADHRB is especially concerned about the evolution of this issue in the Gulf in the upcoming years. For this reason, we call on the international community, especially the UN, to monitor the future allocation of investments in natural resources and the issue of climate change in the Gulf.
At a time of record U.S. weapons sales and many wars, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has decided that Congress should provide less, rather than more oversight of the booming business. Next week, the committee is marking up the Foreign Military Sales Technical, Industrial and Governmental Engagement for Readiness Act. But don’t be fooled by the mundane title — this bill would mark a major…
The latest reports of 2024 outlined an alarming trend in soaring death penalties in Saudi Arabia. The European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR) affirms that at least 172 executions were pursued in 2023. Over this number, the European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR) highlights persistent discrimination in applying the penalty. According to the NGO, Saudi Arabia is primarily targeting domestic workers, foreign nationals, and low-level drug offenders. Since 2015, the Bin Salman family has officially approved the execution of 1,257 people.
Nonetheless, the accuracy of this number remains dubious due to the lack of transparency of the state’s judiciary. As an example, the state refused to hand in official data on yearly death penalties happening in Saudi Arabia to the UN. This reluctance by the authorities suggests that the actual number of death penalties is likely to be higher.
According to the official numbers, the executions increased by 15% compared to last year. Looking at the executions by gender, 166 males and six females were executed. The critical aspect that raises concern over the use of the death penalty is that more than 70% of sentences were not issued for the most severe charges. For example, after excluding the death penalty for drug-related crimes in 2020, Saudi Arabia reintroduced it in 2022. Furthermore, in Saudi Arabia, it is possible to sentence a person to the death penalty for three reasons: 1) Qizas, 2) Ta’zir, and 3) Hadd. The last two types of sentences raise the most significant concerns. Hadd are fixed for specific charges of Islamic law or crimes considered offences against society, which may include protesting against the government. Judges have wide leeway to decide what constitutes a ta’zir crime and are consequently able to inflict the death penalty for a large band of issues, including minor drug infractions.
The issues related to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia encompass different negligence of the state. Firstly, the working system of the judiciary is subject to the crown and accompanied by relevant flaws. ESOHR showed that Saudi Arabia carries executions without informing the families on the legal progress of the case. In addition, the state does not disclose the actual number of cases of death penalties to the public. This secrecy could be part of a government strategy to present itself as progressive. King Salman has systematically promised his willingness to reform and improve the state. Neglecting his responsibilities, he blamed the Saudi judges for emitting such verdicts, continuing the propaganda of a tolerant state. Indeed, the use of the death penalty represents a tool of the crown to suppress dissent.
ADHRB condemns the use of the death sentences by Saudi Arabia and is concerned by what the real numbers can be. In particular, the reports of Saudi Arabia show that the penalty is still inflicted on minors. International human rights standards prohibit the infliction of the death penalty to minors as prescribed by Article 6(5) of the ICCPR. More generally, since 1984, the UN Economic and Social Council has adopted safeguards for the rights of those facing the death penalty. Nonetheless, Saudi Arabia abstains from progressively reducing the number of offences punishable by death. Consequently, ADHRB urges the international community to pressure the government and reiterate the need for more transparent information over the real numbers.
Historically, Gulf Cooperation Countries have used a strategy of repression by imposing state control of the media or through broad laws and strict censorship. Often, the governments justify this control by referring to social values like cohesiveness and harmony in society. However, this strategy poses journalists in the Gulf at extreme risk. They are harassed, and, on some occasions, they are imprisoned without a possibility of judicial review. Overall, the scores of GCC countries regarding the freedom of the press are low. The highest-scoring country is Kuwait, ranking 108 out of 180, and the worst is Saudi Arabia, ranking 172 out of 180.
Bahrain revised its Media Law in 2002, promising more liberties for journalists. However, the legislation contains relevant limits for journalists with 17 existing categories of offences. For three of them, journalists may be imprisoned for up to three years, while the others can result in high fines. Article 19 of the Media Law allows the Ministry of Information to retain publications that are deemed not to be appropriate. The current situation of the media remains problematic; the government owns all the outlets after the 2017 Media Law suspended all private news outlets. Reporters, Sans Frontiers (RSF), have reported the presence of at least 15 journalists in prison.
Moving to Kuwait, the state has revised the freedom of the press with the 2006 Press and Publications law. Even if Kuwait scores highest in journalists’ freedom of expression, the law contains 12 sections prohibiting certain publications. Notably, it is the only country in the Arab Gulf with a process similar to a judicial review. The Ministry of Interior must explain the refusal of publication within 90 days. More recently, the Kuwaiti government has become stricter in repressing journalists’ freedom of expression. A famous case has been the sentence against Abdullah al-Saleh in 2017 for insulting the allied country.
Going to Saudi Arabia, the country scores the lowest in freedom of the press and is one of the most repressive landscapes in the world. Critical journalism does not exist, and the government considers the media a tool to promote their campaigns. The government regulates media with the 2003 Press and Publication Act. The law is extensively broad and provides restrictions for public order, harming the economy or any act considered to put the stability of the state at stake. Currently, Saudi Arabia has only ten newspapers strictly monitored by the royal family. In addition, radio and television are also controlled by the Ministry of Culture, which tries to restrict the freedom of the media. From the reports, it appears that every year, at least 37 journalists are imprisoned, with the most famous case being the murder of Jamal Khashoggi while residing at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
The United Arab Emirates also took control of the press by emitting restrictive laws and applying a block of information available on the internet. The law regulating the media emitted in 1980 is highly restrictive, allowing its interpretation to lead to a violation easily. To mention some of the punishments, for the less grave forms, there are fines of 5000 euros and imprisonment of up to 2 years for the most severe forms. The UAE’s tight regulation causes self-censorship and risk of imprisonment. Notably, two journalists are in jail sentenced for the infamous UAE 94 case.
According to Reporters Without Borders, Qatar ranks 104 out of 179 countries. The press is considered not free, and UAE self-censorship is likely common. Qatar’s Media Law regulates the freedom of the press, prohibiting putting the nation’s economy at stake or criticizing the emir. Particularly concerning appears the repression against the coverage of the struggles faced by migrant workers. In 2016, Qatar detained three journalists while confiscating their footage for dealing with this topic.
Finally, Oman also ranks at the bottom of the press freedom ranking. The government is the owner of the two major daily newspapers. Censorship is common both in printed and online documents. Since 2016, the state has employed even stricter regulations by trying to crack down on some agencies. The reports show that at least three outlets have been closed and more than three journalists put into prison.
To conclude, there are similar trends between different GCC countries regarding regulating the freedom of the press. In particular, the laws heavily restrict journalists’ ability to express themselves freely. Eventually, this causes widespread auto censorship, fearing imprisonment or prosecution. This trend appears concerning and, unfortunately, in line with the rule of law of these countries. The GCC countries must amend their media laws, and simultaneously, pressure from the international community is needed to request that the rights of journalists be safeguarded.
In response to Israel’s assault on the people of Gaza in early October, Yemen’s Houthi movement, Ansar Allah, began mounting attacks on commercial ships in and around the Red Sea. The Houthis said the attacks were aimed at Israeli-connected or Israel-bound ships and they would continue until there is a ceasefire in Gaza. Meanwhile, the pressure on this vital trade route is impacting the global…
A group of progressive lawmakers in the U.S. House is reportedly planning to ask President Joe Biden to seek the resignation of White House Middle East adviser Brett McGurk, a lesser-known official who has exerted significant influence over the administration’s handling of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip. HuffPost’s Akbar Shahid Ahmed, who has detailed McGurk’s outsized role in shaping Biden’s…
The role of women in the defense industry is changing across the Middle East, but particularly in Saudi Arabia, as successful programs, such as the World Defense Show’s International Women in Defense forum, have shown. The defense sector remains a male dominated industry across the globe. It was reported last year that women represented just […]
For weeks Yemen’s Houthi forces have been greatly inconveniencing commercial shipping with their blockade, with reports last month saying Israel’s Eilat Port has seen an 85 percent drop in activity since the attacks began.
This entirely bloodless inconvenience was all it took for Washington to attack Yemen, the war-ravaged nation in which the US and its allies have spent recent years helping Saudi Arabia murder hundreds of thousands of people with its own maritime blockades.
The Biden administration’s dramatic escalation toward yet another horrific war in the Middle East has been hotly criticised by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who argue that the attacks were illicit because they took place without congressional approval.
This impotent congressional whining will never go anywhere, since, as Glenn Greenwald has observed, the US Congress never actually does anything to hold presidents to account for carrying out acts of war without their approval.
But there are some worthwhile ideas going around.
After the second round of strikes, a Democratic representative from Georgia named Hank Johnson tweeted the following:
“I have what some may consider a dumb idea, but here it is: stop the bombing of Gaza, then the attacks on commercial shipping will end. Why not try that approach?”
By golly, that’s just crazy enough to work. In fact, anti-interventionists have been screaming it at the top of their lungs since the standoff with Yemen began.
All the way back in mid-October Responsible Statecraft’s Trita Parsi was already writing urgently about the need for a ceasefire in Gaza to prevent it from exploding into a wider war in the region, a position Parsi has continued pushing ever since.
“Huge Miscalculation”: Biden’s Refusal to Push for Gaza Ceasefire Could Drag U.S. into Middle East War https://t.co/eJuzswi2BJ
As we discussed previously, Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza is threatening to bleed over into conflicts with the Houthis in Yemen, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria, and even potentially with Iran itself – any of which could easily see the US and its allies committing themselves to a full-scale war.
Peace in Gaza takes these completely unnecessary gambles off the table.
And it is absolutely within Washington’s power to force a ceasefire in Gaza. Biden could end all this with one phone call, as US presidents have done in the past. As Parsi wrote for The Nation earlier this month:
“In 1982, President Ronald Reagan was ‘disgusted’ by Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. He stopped the transfer of cluster munitions to Israel and told Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a phone call that ‘this is a holocaust.’ Reagan demanded that Israel withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Begin caved. Twenty minutes after their phone call, Begin ordered a halt on attacks.
“Indeed, it is absurd to claim that Biden has no leverage, particularly given the massive amounts of arms he has shipped to Israel. In fact, Israeli officials openly admit it. ‘All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US,’ retired Israeli Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Brick conceded in November of last year. ‘The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability.… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.’ ”
In the end, you get peace by pursuing peace. That’s how it happens. You don’t get it by pursuing impossible imaginary ideals like the total elimination of Hamas while butchering tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.
You don’t get it by trying to bludgeon the Middle East into passively accepting an active genocide. You get it by negotiation, de-escalation, diplomacy and detente.
The path to peace is right there. The door’s not locked. It’s not even closed. The fact that they don’t take it tells you what these imperialist bastards are really interested in.
Human Rights Watch’s annual report highlights politicians’ double standards and ‘transactional diplomacy’ amid escalating crises
Human rights across the world are in a parlous state as leaders shun their obligations to uphold international law, according to the annual report of Human Rights Watch (HRW).
In its 2024 world report, HRW warns grimly of escalating human rights crises around the globe, with wartime atrocities increasing, suppression of human rights defenders on the rise, and universal human rights principles and laws being attacked and undermined by governments.
HRH Ambassador Reema bint Bandar Al Saud, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States, will spearhead the International Women in Defense program at World Defense Show 2024. Scheduled for next February, the event, which is held under the auspices of His Majesty King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, aims to spotlight and […]
Impressive rhetoric and limited reform did not change the game for vulnerable and exploited migrant workers
A year ago, Lionel Messi and what seemed to be the entire population of Argentina were celebrating victory after perhaps the most dramatic World Cup final ever played. In a closing tournament press conference, the president of Fifa, Gianni Infantino, described Qatar 2022 as the best World Cup in history. The accounts showed that world football’s governing body had pocketed a record $7.5bn worth of revenue.
Then, as Christmas approached, the sporting and media caravans moved on. But many migrant workers, whose labour had enabled this sporting spectacle to take place, did not. By March this year, a coalition of eight union federations had issued an angry statement noting deteriorating working conditions, as the spotlight of global attention abruptly switched off.
![[OPINION] Navigating the storms of repression: The resilience of young women rights defenders in Asia](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2024/03/women-rights-defenders-asia-mar-7-2024.jpg)
(@GoodVibePolitik)