Last month, FIFA announced that Saudi Arabia will host the next 2034 World Cup. Their announcement highlights unsolved issues from the 2022 Qatar edition.
FIFA and Qatar did not uphold the respect of migrant workers’ rights involved in building the necessary infrastructures for the most important football competition. This negligence convinced different members of the civil society to intervene. For example, on May 19, 2022, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, in combination with other human rights organizations, migrant groups and labour unions, requested FIFA and Qatari authorities to compensate for the serious abuses committed. This joint open letter directed to Gianni Infantino (President of FIFA) urged a collaboration between FIFA, the government of Qatar, and the International Labour Organization (ILO). In particular, it was asked to establish a reparation programme of at least 440 million US dollars for migrant workers and their families.
However, the result is deceiving, notwithstanding that FIFA has declared to be open to mediate to provide solutions to the victims. At the moment, Qatar has compensated some migrants who faced grave abuses. However, these programmes came too late or were inefficient. The compensation programmes in Qatar are narrow in scope and lack serious enforcement. In particular, HRW showed that Qatar’s courts are slow in adjudicating cases brought by migrant workers, and when deciding in their favour, companies do not obey the adjudication. Furthermore, accessing the Qatari compensation system becomes practically impossible once the victims return home.
An examination of both the FIFA statute and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights shows that FIFA is accountable for the human rights violations committed in Qatar. In particular, they were contributing to forced labour, wage theft and deaths. However, FIFA’s position regarding compensation has not been straightforward. Publicly, it has expressed that it wants to help workers in Qatar to get compensation. However, the plans and methods proposed have been questionable. Firstly, on March 16, 2023, at the 73rd Congress of FIFA, it was declared that FIFA would commit itself to compensating the migrant workers of Qatar. At that point, it created the project ”FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Legacy Fund to benefit people most in need”.
Nonetheless, the initiative has no relevant connection with compensating migrant workers as it focuses on educating children, creating a labour excellence hub, and inviting thirds for contribution. Ultimately, Gianni Infantino declared that the duty of compensation would fall under the responsibility of the Qatari Worker Insurance Fund. This statement suggests that FIFA has decided not to be actively involved in compensation.
On the Qatari side, Qatari authorities have introduced several initiatives for compensation, including the Labour Ministry’s Wage Protection System, the Labour Dispute Resolution Committees and the Workers Support and Insurance Fund. However, as discussed before, these programmes suffer from late introduction, narrow scope and faulty implementation. Furthermore, Qatar only accepts claims related to death or severe injuries while declining the others. In this prospect, the authorities failed to investigate thoroughly the causes of deaths and attributed a large portion of them as ‘’natural causes’’. Hence, the scale of uncompensated human rights abuses has remained significant. Under international human rights law, Qatar must prevent widespread human rights abuses and ensure remedies for them.
From the above-presented information, compensation remains a complicated issue. The tools established to provide for reparations have been established in 2020, and they are not retroactive; this means that a relevant number of migrant workers cannot access them. In addition, the procedures connected with compensation in Qatar are characterized by delays and opacity in decisions. Providing such an inefficient system highlights a significant disinterest in the rights of migrants from FIFA and Qatar. They hold shared responsibility for causing the theft of wages, offering dire conditions of work and causing thousands of deaths.
As FIFA was aware that Qatar did not have an appropriate working system to host a World Cup, it should claim responsibility and provide a new serious compensation platform. Only 48,000 migrant workers have been compensated, and leaving the responsibility of compensation only to Qatar poses ulterior risks of respecting the due process of their rights. Qatar is requested to abide by investigations following due process, taking the claims seriously, and responding to them following principles of justice. Finally, defending the victims’ rights is recommended by litigating in court against FIFA and issuing lawsuits against Qatari construction companies from foreign jurisdictions.
Top Saudi Arabian officials, led by Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, have formulated a covert plan to make countries across Africa and Asia dependent on fossil fuel products, a new bombshell investigation has revealed. According to the investigation by Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) and Channel 4 News, which went undercover to shine a light on the plan…
Edelman, world’s largest public relations company, paid millions by Saudi Arabia, UAE and other repressive regimes
Public trust in some of the world’s most repressive governments is soaring, according to Edelman, the world’s largest public relations firm, whose flagship “trust barometer” has created its reputation as an authority on global trust. For years, Edelman has reported that citizens of authoritarian countries, including Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and China, tend to trust their governments more than people living in democracies do.
But Edelman has been less forthcoming about the fact that some of these same authoritarian governments have also been its clients. Edelman’s workfor one such client – the government of the UAE – will be front and center when world leaders convene in Dubai later this month for the UN’s Cop28 climate summit.
On the 31st of October, FIFA announced that Saudi Arabia had become the sole bidder of the 2034 World Cup. The decision certainly does not come as a surprise. FIFA has regularly been criticized for bribery scandals and its nonchalance in sponsoring World Cups in states with poor human rights standards (Russia, China, Qatar).
Nonetheless, the most authoritative football federation’s official stance is to ensure complete respect for human rights in the preparation process for the World Cup. Arguably, it does so by referring to Article 7 of the FIFA Human Rights Policy and underlining its adherence to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. However, doubts can be raised on how binding these instruments are since neither Qatar nor FIFA compensated the families for the deaths and injuries of migrant workers during Qatar’s turn at hosting the prestigious sporting event.
The founding issues in accepting a bid for a World Cup from a country from the Arab Gulf, like Qatar or Saudi Arabia, are plenty. In an attempt to clarify the situation, these issues can be divided into three categories: 1) The poor human rights standards of these states (inclusiveness, freedom of expression, political repression); 2) accepting the rights of workers at stake considering that the kafala system is inherently abusive: and3) allowing these countries to fulfil the strategy of ”sports whitewashing” to deflect from their poor human rights standards. Considering that the first and third issues are founded on the national strategies of these states, FIFA and other stakeholders usually appease them by accepting significant sums of money. However, reluctantly accepting that these two issues fall under ”state decisions,” it is unacceptable that FIFA becomes actively responsible for the deaths of thousands of workers.
This topic was particularly pressing for the last World Cup in Qatar. In this instance, migrant workers were hired for the construction of hotels and stadiums and were subjected to various human rights abuses. The first topic was how the workers were hired under the kafala sponsorship system. The system is a sponsorship by the employer, who will cover his employees’ travel expenses and accommodation. The issue with this system lies in its deregulation. In the case of Qatar, workers had no protection under labour law, which granted the kafeel (employer) the ability to exploit workers on different levels. Some examples are extra hours of work, blackmailing migrant workers on the outcome of their visa, and denying the possibility to cease the contract of employment. The second issue, inherently connected with the first, is the working conditions migrant workers must bear. A 2021 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report showed that a hazard for workers in Qatar was extreme heat exposure, which causes health complications.
Considering this information and ascertaining that Qatar and Saudi Arabia share political and legal similarities, it is possible to foresee the human rights violations of the 2034 World Cup. Saudi Arabia holds a Kafala system similar to that in place in Qatar, although they ostensibly reformed it in March 2021. However, HRW highlighted how the labour reforms did not uphold human rights standards. The reform allows workers to request an exit permit (document granting authorization to leave the country) without the employers’ permission. Even with this, exiting a country is a freedom rather than a procedure that needs to be accepted by third parties. Michael Page, Middle East Director of HRW, describes the Saudi Arabian kafala as the most abusive system in the region. Common violations are confiscation of passports, delayed wages and forced labour. In addition, the employers are still responsible for renewing the work permits, and – as happened in Qatar – workers often suffer the consequences of possibly being undocumented. Considering these aspects, the 2021 reforms of the kafala system by Saudi Arabia need to be revised, bearing in mind that it remains to be seen what criteria the ministry would use in accepting workers’ exit requests.
Furthermore, Saudi Arabia lies in the same geographic area as Qatar; in summer, it reaches 40 degrees Celsius and beyond. Considering these circumstances, the regulations should follow Wet Bulb Globe Temperature, which prohibits working beyond 31.2 Celsius. However, the fact that the labour union cannot monitor the kafala agreements will likely cause a repetition of the human rights issues in Qatar.
Considering this situation, particular attention is necessary to monitor the status of human rights for workers in Saudi Arabia in the future. FIFA’s bidding documents show that 14 stadiums are needed to be built to host the World Cup. To do so, 13.4 million migrant workers are expected to work on low-wage services and few human rights protections. As a result, it appears that FIFA has decided again to accomplish human rights abuses will likely lead to a new inescapable tragedy with no accountability.
Canberra-based firm Electro Optic Systems (EOS) has secured a contract worth A$28 million to supply spares of its R600 remote weapon system (RWS) to an undisclosed military customer in Southeast Asia, the company announced on 13 November. “EOS is proud of this achievement, which not only strengthens its presence in the South East Asian defence […]
On the 21st of August, 2023, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report on the mass killings of Ethiopians at the Yemen-Saudi border. The research indicates that the indiscriminate use of force by Saudi authorities started in March 2022 and is still ongoing. This crisis is of the utmost importance as, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), tens of thousands of people use this route to travel from the Horn of Africa.
The perils for Ethiopian migrants start at the sea crossing. BBC reports that 24 migrants have been missing in only one week after a shipwrecking. However, the dangers become more severe at the transit routes of Al Jawf and Sa ‘dah, where Saudi Arabian forces systematically and indiscriminately use force. The claims made by experts on the ground on the violations committed by Saudi Arabian authorities are appalling. Border forces are responsible for shelling people, arbitrarily detaining them, forcing rapes and abusing them.
Saudi Arabian authorities are also pursuing a deliberate and systematic escalation of targeted killings. HRW reports the use of explosive weapons and the orders of no quarters to shoot at people, including women and children. As a result of this, the migrant routes have become burial sites, and Saudi Arabia continues to expand security infrastructure at the border.
In this tragic scenario, the Saudi government dismissed the allegations. At the official press, they declared: ” The Kingdom have discovered no information to substantiate the allegations.”. At the UN level, the special rapporteur wrote to the Saudi government requesting explanations. At the same time, The Guardian has contacted the Saudi minister of foreign affairs and the Saudi embassy in London. However, the answer has either been a categorical denial of the allegations or a no comment by the Saudi Foreign Ministry.
Considering the circumstances on the ground, the international community has urged a call to action. HRW has repeatedly reported on the crisis in the region of Tigray (Ethiopia), where hunger and persecution represent a current threat to the Ethiopians. The rights of this population need to be ensured; however, the systematic killings at the border in Saudi Arabia and the national war risk becoming a dramatic spiral of human rights crisis. For this reason, the international community should ask for accountability to the Saudi Arabian government. The use of lethal force in an indiscriminate way can amount to a crime against humanity if pursued as a national policy of Saudi Arabia. In addition, the use of explosive weapons is prohibited by international humanitarian law.
Considering the official answers of Saudi Arabia, it is presumable that the authorities will continue to deny the allegations; nonetheless, a reaction is necessary. Every diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia needs to be cut, and governments must denounce the ongoing violations at the borders. In addition, even if Saudi Arabia is not part of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it is desirable to receive a statement from UN officials denouncing the blatant violations of criminal and humanitarian law.
On 27 October, 2023 Human Rights Watch stated that FIFA has broken its own human rights rules in announcing a plan for hosting the next two men’s World Cups that effectively eliminates bidding and human rights due diligence.
Within hours after FIFA published its arrangements for the 2030World Cup, Saudi Arabiaannounced its ambitions to host the 2034 World Cup.
“Barely a year after the human rights catastrophes of the 2022 Qatar World Cup, FIFA has failed to learn the lesson that awarding multi-billion dollar events without due diligence and transparency can risk corruption and major human rights abuses,” said Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch “The possibility that FIFA could award Saudi Arabia the 2034 World Cup despite its appalling human rights record and closed door to any monitoring exposes FIFA’s commitments to human rights as a sham.”
In February 2023, Human Rights Watch contacted FIFA to request details on its due diligence and stakeholder consultation for selection of future World Cup hosts and awarding commercial sponsorship contracts. FIFA has not responded.
Because of regional rotation requirements, the six-country 2030 World Cup means that FIFA will only accept bids from Asia or Oceania for 2034, opening the way for Saudi Arabia to be the host. FIFA instead needs to keep open bidding for the 2034 World Cup and apply the same human rights benchmarks to all bidders in advance of selection, Human Rights Watch said.
FIFA’s Human Rights Policy, adopted in 2017, outlines its responsibility to identify and address adverse human rights impacts of its operations, including taking adequate measures to prevent and mitigate human rights abuses. Article 7 of FIFA’s Human Rights Policy states that “FIFA will constructively engage with relevant authorities and other stakeholders and make every effort to uphold its international human rights responsibilities.” This should include consulting a wide range of stakeholders, including potentially affected groups, domestic human rights monitors, athletes, fans, migrant laborers, and unions, before making major hosting decisions. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/04/17/fifa-world-cup-the-human-rights-plans-of-host-cities/]
Under FIFA’s human rights policies, countries bidding to host games must commit to strict human rights and labor standards. In the introduction to FIFA’s “Key Principles of the Reformed Bidding Process,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino writes: “Whoever ends up hosting the FIFA World Cup must …formally commit to conducting their activities based on sustainable event management principles and to respecting international human rights and labour standards according to the United Nations’ Guiding Principles.”
FIFA has so far failed to apply these principles in the award of the 2030 and 2034 World Cups.
In June, FIFA cancelled its planned announcement about the bidding process for the 2030 World Cup, instead announcing that:
in line with the principle of confederation rotation and of securing the best possible hosting conditions for the tournaments, the bidding processes for both the 2030 and 2034 editions would be conducted concurrently, with FIFA member associations from the territories of the Asian Football Confederations and the Oceania Football Confederation invited to bid to host the FIFA World Cup 2034
FIFA’s Overview of the Bidding Processes document sets a deadline for any member associations to confirm bidding by October 31, 2023, an unreasonably tight deadline for the 2034 World Cup 11 years away that should include national stakeholder consultation and could ultimately cost billions of dollars. Saudi Arabia’s appalling human rights record has deteriorated under Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s rule, including mass executions, continued repression of women’s rights under its male guardianship system, and the killing of hundreds of migrants at the Saudi-Yemen border. Torture and imprisonment of peaceful critics of the government continues, and courts imposed decades-long imprisonment on Saudi women for tweets. Sex outside marriage, including same-sex relations, is a crime, with punishments including death. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Saudi Arabia practice extreme self-censorship to survive their daily lives. LGBT players and fans visiting Saudi Arabia could face censorship, stigma, and discrimination on the basis on their sexual orientation and gender identity. See e.g.: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/saudi-arabia/]
Independent human rights monitors, journalists, women’s rights activists, and other peaceful critics are jailed, under house arrest, and cannot safely work in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has severe restrictions on journalists and free expression, a basic requirement for World Cup hosts, Human Rights watch said. In October 2018, Saudi agents murdered and dismembered the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, who had been critical of the Saudi government, an assassination apparently approved by the crown prince himself.
“In Saudi Arabia, independent human rights monitoring is not possible due to government repression. This makes it effectively impossible for FIFA to carry out the ongoing monitoring and inspection of human rights its human rights policy requires,” Worden said.
While welcoming the Saudi bid to host the World Cup in 2034, FIFA has not said anything about how it proposes to assess its human rights conditions.
“With Saudi Arabia’s estimated 13.4 million migrant workers, inadequate labor and heat protections and no unions, no independent human rights monitors, and no press freedom, there is every reason to fear for the lives of those who would build and service stadiums, transit, hotels, and other hosting infrastructure in Saudi Arabia,” Worden said.
“FIFA is failing in its responsibility to the world of football to conduct World Cup bidding and selection procedures in an ethical, transparent, objective, and unbiased way,” Worden said. “If there’s to be any integrity in what remains of this process, FIFA needs to immediately delay and open the bidding process for the 2034 World Cup, make public its labor, human rights, and environment policies, and then make sure protections are fully carried out.”
On 22 November 2022, Mohammed al-Qahtani had to be released after the ten years of questionable sentence he received. However, since October 2022, Saudi Arabian authorities have refused to give information about him despite the expiration of his sentence. The refusal of Saudi authorities to release him makes this a case of enforced disappearance for which Saudi Arabia has been called responsible at different times.
Al-Qahtani is a human rights defender and co-founder of the dismantled Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA). The association’s objective was to promote the development of human rights and freedoms in Saudi Arabia by proposing constitutional reforms. Predictably, the association was banned and dissolved by a court order in 2013. By 2016, the 11 founders of the ACPRA were sentenced for their human rights activism. On 9 March 2013Al-Qahtani was arrested arbitrarily and sentenced to 10 years in prison by the Criminal Court of Riyadh. The charges included allegations of inciting disorders and instigating international organizations against the Kingdom.
During his imprisonment, he was the victim of repeated harassment and ill-treatment, including beatings and torture. He was forcibly put in a wing of inmates with mental health issues that caused him to be assaulted. To protest against this treatment, he entered a hunger strike various times. Regarding incommunicado status, the Saudi Arabian authorities denied disclosing information in April 2021 after testing positive for COVID-19. The family believes that the Saudi authorities use this strategy to hide information about the condition of his health.
Regarding the issue of enforced disappearance that many NGOs are denouncing, his case does not stand in a vacuum. There is a trend in Saudi Arabia to increase the sentences of prisoners of conscience. Alternatively, the treatment directed at human rights activists becomes more tragic. Abdullah al-Hamid, co-founder of ACPRA in April 2020, was found dead as a result of medical negligence. And Musa al-Qarni was the victim of a contested political murder in his prison. About the disappearance of al-Qahtani on 30 October 2022, his wife called the prison to ask about his release status. The officers affirmed that he was transferred to another prison, refusing to disclose any other information. The suspect for this treatment against Al-Qahtani allegedly came as a reprisal to his decision to file individual complaints for the conditions of his detention.
It is urgent to call for a reaction against the government of Saudi Arabia. In 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention described al-Qathani’s detention as arbitrary and demanded his release. Since 2020, the UN’s Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance found in Saudi Arabia a pattern of enforced disappearances accompanied by the use of torture against political dissidents. The United Nations Special Rapporteur Mary Lawlor confirmed that Saudi authorities accused him of providing false information before UN human rights mechanisms. Therefore, we demand the international community to demand the Saudi government to provide information about Mohammed al-Qahtani. It is also the responsibility of the states to cut diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. States must not offer engagement to a country that uses repression as a political strategy.
Abdulla Mohamed AlDurazi, an 18-year-old Saudi citizen from the Qatif region in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, was arrested without an arrest warrant while walking alone on 27 August 2014. His detention has been marred by multiple human rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearance, solitary confinement, and an unfair trial. He was sentenced to death for alleged freedom of expression-related crimes committed when he was a minor. He is currently detained in the General Directorate Investigations prison in Al-Dammam, awaiting execution, as the Saudi Supreme Court upheld his death sentence on 8 August 2022, meaning he could be executed at any time without prior notice, in a clear violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite the 2020 SaudiRoyal Decree aiming to abolish the death penalty for child defendants. On 16 October 2023, the UN Special Rapporteur on summary, extrajudicial, or arbitrary executions, issued apress release, in which he urged “the Saudi judiciary and other institutions in Saudi Arabia to ensure that Abdullah AlDurazi’s execution is not carried out”.
On 27 August 2014, while Abdulla was walking alone in the street, Saudi security officers seized him, beat him, and arrested him without presenting an arrest warrant. After being taken to the Tarout Police Station and then Qatif Prison, he was moved to the Dammam Investigations Center six months following his arrest. Abdulla forcibly disappeared for three months and endured approximately six months of solitary confinement, during which he was subjected to physical and psychological torture. Prison officers inflicted severe burns around his eye, broke his tooth, and injured his knee while he was restrained for a long time. Because of the cruel torture he endured, he suffered a severe ear injury, and he was hospitalized, where he spent two weeks in a coma. Under this brutal torture, Abdulla was forced into signing a false confession, which he was not allowed to read, claiming his involvement with a terrorist group.
Following three years of arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, and solitary confinement, Abdulla faced trial before the Saudi Specialized Criminal Court in August 2017. During the trial, he cited the details of the torture he endured during the investigation period, which forced him into signing an already prepared written false confession that he was not allowed to read. He also made many requests for the court for his medical records to be admitted, which shows evidence of his hospitalization from the torture he endured to coerce his confession, but the court ignored them. It also denied Abdulla access to a court-appointed lawyer, which made his father, who works in the fishing sector and has no legal training, represent him at his trial before the Specialized Criminal Court, as his family could not afford to appoint a private lawyer.
Abdulla’s trial relied only on his coerced confession, as the court did not present any other evidence for his alleged involvement in the crimes of which he was accused. Additionally, all of these alleged offenses are not considered among the most serious crimes. Consequently, Abdulla was convicted of 1) participating in the formation of a terrorist cell aimed at destabilizing the internal security in the country and targeting security officers, 2) participating in demonstrations and marches, 3) attacking and destroying public property, carrying out acts of sabotage and chaos, blocking the road and seeking to cause strife and division in the country, 4) assaulting security men by throwing Molotov cocktails at them, 5) blocking the road for pedestrians by burning tires, 6) chanting anti-state slogans, and 7) participating in Ahmed AlMatar’s funeral and distributing water during it, and organizing this funeral. The court even exaggerated and fabricated charges that were not included in the investigation books and the statements extracted under torture, in which Abdulla did not mention the formation of a terrorist cell. Even though all these crimes allegedly occurred before Abdulla turned 18, except for one crime in relation to peaceful protest-related activities that took place in May 2014, when Abdulla was 18, the Specialized Criminal Court sentenced him to death in February 2018.
Despite the 2020 Royal Decree by Saudi King Salman abolishing the death penalty for child defendants, and Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman’s statement in aninterview with “The Atlantic” on 3 March 2022 that the death penalty had been abolished except for murder charges, the Court of Appeal upheld his death sentence on 8 August 2022 and rejected Abdulla’s appeal, ignoring the protection provided in the 2020 Royal Decree to minors in Saudi Arabia for discretionary offenses (ta’zir), which involve the charges brought against Abdulla. Notably, the alleged crimes were protest-related and did not involve crimes considered the most serious, such as murder. Abdulla appealed his sentence before the Saudi Supreme Court, and in October 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, meaning he could be executed at any time.
On 16 October 2023, the UN Special Rapporteur on summary, extrajudicial, or arbitrary executions, issued apress release, in which he expressed concern at the imminent execution of Abdullah AlDurazi, who was a child when he allegedly committed his crime and urged “the Saudi judiciary and other institutions in Saudi Arabia to ensure that Abdullah AlDurazi’s execution is not carried out”. He added that “the Juvenile Act does not extend to mandatory and retributive death sentences, allowing for the execution of children sentenced under the provisions of the Sharia legal system” – that is, according to the Saudi interpretation of Sharia. Accordingly, he called on Saudi Arabia “to publish the text of the 2020 Royal Decree and enforce it for all defendants below the age of 18, regardless of their crime”. Reprieve, in collaboration with other organizations, had worked on this issue, contributed to its promotion, and shed light on it, warning of the danger of Saudi Arabia carrying out Abdulla’s execution at any time.
Abdulla’s warrantless arrest, torture, enforced disappearance, solitary confinement, and unfair trial go against the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which Saudi Arabia is a party. Additionally, the violations that he faced despite being a minor violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
As such, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) urgently highlights the imminent threat to execute Abdulla and at least two other children in Saudi Arabia for crimes they allegedly committed as minors. ADHRB calls on the international community to take immediate action and pressure the Saudi government to revoke the death sentences imposed on all minors in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it urges Saudi authorities to release Abdulla immediately, given the absence of a fair trial and proper legal procedures. It further demands an investigation into the allegations of torture, enforced disappearance, solitary confinement, and ill-treatment, holding the perpetrators accountable. Compensation for the violations he endured should be provided, or at the very least, a fair retrial must be granted, leading to his release.
I was “interviewed” by an Iranian journalist online (15 October) about the Hamas-Israel conflict and Iran’s involvement. My answers are below.
During the war between Hamas and Israel, some sources in America and their affiliated media reported that Iranian money was blocked in Qatar again, which was later denied. Do you think there was a message hidden in this news?
I have written about this accusation in the United States. For your readers, I want to lay out the reasoning behind the accusations in the United States. The reasons for these accusations are complex, and they have more to do with partisan politics in the United States than about Iran.
First, the accusations of the tie between the Iranian settlement and the Hamas attack was launched exclusively by Republicans, and it was a ploy to try and blame President Biden for the Hamas attack. There were many misstatements made, but “truth” is irrelevant when it comes to partisan politics. The main goal is to “score” points rhetorically.
The most ignorant comments claim that Iran received the money and immediately used the funds to support the Hamas attack. This is of course a total lie, but for people who are ill-disposed toward Iran and toward President Biden, this was an easy lie to sell, and looking at the commentary from right-wing media and comments on new stories shows that many people heard this and immediately believed it.
A slightly more sophisticated version of this same lie is that Iran received the funds, and couldn’t use them to support Hamas because they were earmarked for humanitarian purposes, but because they received the funds, they were able to “offset” other government funds which were sent to support Hamas.
When the Biden administration decisively pointed out that first, the funds did belong to Iran, and that none of them had been disbursed from Qatar, a third version of this story started circulating, and that is that Iran anticipated these funds after the settlement, and so disbursed other existing funds to support Hamas.
Of course all of these were complete lies. Hamas had planned this attack for months. The Iranian settlement took place long after the planning and preparation for the Hamas attack was underway. Iran could not have anticipated that the $6 billion of its own money would be released as a condition of the prisoner exchange, because negotiations were not finalized before the planning for the Hamas attack. So these accusations are false and illogical.
However, that still did not stop Republicans from continuing the narrative that President Biden was “soft on Iran” and that concessions made to Iran “somehow” led to the Hamas attack, and so ultimately President Biden was responsible. The Republican narrative that the attack was engineered, directed and supported by Iran continues and now has been cemented in the Republican political narrative, and the Biden administration has been unable to counteract it.
Another narrative that has emerged claims that Iran will instigate Hezbollah to attack Israel from Lebanon, thus proving that Iran was behind the Hamas attack. This is illogical, of course, but the demonization of Iran has become such a complete fixture in American politics, this kind of narrative has been extremely easy to promulgate.
So, in response to these falsehoods, the Biden administration froze the Iranian assets in Qatar. It was a violation of the agreement between Iran and the United States. But it was necessary to try and stop the Republican lies. It highlighted the fact that the funds were never disbursed, and that Iran could not now anticipate receiving them.
And the other move by the Biden administration to counter this rhetoric was to engage in a full-throated, loud and very public support for Israel. Sending Secretary of State Blinken to Israel for a highly emotional presentation citing his own Jewish roots, and President Biden making many public statements in support of Israel blunted some of the Republican criticism. I am not suggesting that these sentiments were insincere, but they were a very deliberate, highly public and emotional display of support for Israel. And it appears to have worked.
How likely is it that America will use these funds as leverage against Iran in the future? If so, what will be the harm to America?
No one should expect these funds to be released very soon. There is a possibility that they could be quietly released after the 2024 elections when President Biden’s fate concerning his presidency is settled. If Trump were to win re-election in 2024 the funds would never be released while Trump was in office. One again, I emphasize that this is not about Iran. This is about electoral politics in the United States, where sadly,, any politician who does anything to support or provide any benefit to Iran will be attacked.
What is the impact of this war on the future of Iran’s nuclear negotiations?
The Israeli-Hamas conflict will result in a halt to any progress in the Iranian nuclear negotiations until after the 2024 presidential elections. Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina) said today that Iran was totally to blame for the Hamas attack. Other Republicans have said the same. Some have called for bombing of Iran’s oil facilities to destroy Iran’s economic base. Sadly, anything the United States would now do that would result in any improvement in Iran’s economic condition is on hold for now. It is too politically dangerous for the Biden administration to do this. At best the talks will “tread water” until after January 2025 when the new presidential administration is in office.
Let me also point out that if Hezbollah attacks Israel from the North, any talks between Iran and the United States over the nuclear negotiations will be immediately abandoned.
What effects will this war have on the future of Iran and Saudi Arabia relations?
One of the narratives that is being widely spread in the United States by Republicans is that: Iran engineered the Hamas attack on Israel in order to prevent the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran has recently improved relations with Saudi Arabia. So the question of whether Iran sees establishment of Saudi Arabian-Israeli relations as a danger, or something to be prevented is a very potent issue that Iran will have to deal with diplomatically. If American conservative politicians have their way (including Trump), the Saudi Arabia-Israel accords will go forward, not only because that is seen as positive for Israeli security, but also because it will “deal a blow” to Iran–a double benefit for these politicians. But the Iranian government should take this accusation of Iranian support for the attack as a way to prevent this new alliance very seriously, because it is a major narrative in the United States.
What is the effect of the war between Hamas and Israel on the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel?
See my answer above. This has emerged in some political circles as the root cause for the Hamas attack, and the supposed motivation for Iranian support of the Hamas attack–to prevent this normalization of Saudi Arabian-Israeli relations. It is assumed that Iran wants to prevent this, and it is also assumed that Hamas sees this as a blow to their cause.
Because this has been put forward so strongly as a motivation for the attack, every effort will now be made on the part of the United States to see that the normalization takes place.
Ass a final observation, however, many supporters of the Palestinians point out that normalization of Israel’s relations with Arab states will have no effect on the Palestinian cause, because in fact, Arab States have not been supporting Palestinians at all historically. There are individuals and groups within Arab states that have supported the Palestinian cause, but the Arab states themselves have never been supportive. This underscores Iran’s support for Palestinians–and the fact that Iran, as a non-Arab state has been the chief reliable support for the Palestinian cause.
The president has a frosty history with Israel’s PM, and he has emphasised that US backing depends on the upholding of democratic values
President Biden’s response to the murderous attack by Hamas on Israeli towns, villages and kibbutzimthat claimed more than 1,200 Israeli lives, the majority of them civilians, was one of the most heartfelt expressions of support for Israel by a US president for a very long time. His speech on 10 October emphasised that Washington would not confine its backing for the Jewish state to words, and would immediately translate those words into tangible assistance. But Biden’s pledge of “surging” support, including sending aircraft carriers “to deter hostile actions against Israel” – is not without caveats, to which Israel should pay careful heed. Over the weekend, Biden wisely warned Israel against occupying Gaza, and expressed his support for opening a humanitarian corridor to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe that is already taking place.
It is no secret that US-Israel relations have been strained since Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power at the end of last year. The US administration has been openly critical of the crass attempt to weaken the country’s judiciary, and with it Israel’s democratic system, by the newly formed, most rightwing government coalition in its history. Indirectly supporting the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have been regularly taking to the streets in defence of their democracy, Biden linked US friendship with Israel to the preservation of that democracy, and asserted that: “The genius of American democracy and Israeli democracy is that they are both built on strong institutions, on checks and balances, on an independent judiciary.”
Airbus Defence and Space (DS) has completed the flight-testing phase of its automatic air-to-air refuelling (A3R) system in partnership with the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF), the company announced on 11 October. According to the company, flight testing was carried out over three weeks in August and involved several RSAF-operated aircraft including an A330 […]
Over the years the world’s most powerful fast-food chain, McDonald’s, has twice honored a Saudi prince’s business empire with its highest accolade for its franchisees: the Golden Arch award.
Prince Mishaal bin Khalid al-Saud – who controls more than 200 McDonald’s outlets across Saudi Arabia – told CEO Magazine in 2018 that one of the secrets of his enterprise’s success is “ensuring a positive and favorable environment for our employees”.
As Arizona struggles to adapt to a water shortage that has dried out farms and scuttled development plans, one company has emerged as a central villain. The agricultural company Fondomonte, which is owned by a Saudi Arabian conglomerate, has attracted tremendous criticism over the past several years for sucking up the state’s groundwater to grow alfalfa and then exporting that alfalfa to feed cows…
A number of Arab states have called for “restraint” and a de-escalation of violence following the launch of the largest attack in years on Israeli territory early on Saturday morning.
Qatar, a Gulf state that does not have diplomatic relations with Israel, issued a statement through its foreign ministry on Saturday in which it said that the ultimate responsibility for the so-called ‘Al-Aqsa Storm’ operation conducted by Hamas lies with the Israeli government.
Doha added in its statement its desire for both sides in the conflict to exercise restraint, and called on the international community to ensure that Israel does not use the event as an excuse for a “disproportionate” response against Palestinians in Gaza.
Saudi Arabia, another state that does not currently have formal ties with Israel, also released a statement on X (formerly Twitter) to say that it was “closely following up on the unprecedented developments” between “Palestinian factions and the Israeli occupation forces.”
The Saudi foreign ministry also said it had repeatedly “warned of the dangers” that might occur “as a result of the continued occupation” and for “depriving the Palestinian people of their legitimate rights.”
In recent weeks, the leadership of both Saudi Arabia and Israel have signaled a desire to normalize relations, with the United States understood to be actively negotiating the details. Earlier this week, Hamas expressed its “unwavering position of rejecting all forms of normalization and contact with the Israeli occupation.”
Early on Saturday, Hamas militants entered Israeli territory and have appeared to gain a foothold of control in some communities in the south of the country. Israeli authorities said more than 2,000 rockets had been launched from Gaza. At least 40 people have been killed, Israel’s health ministry said on Saturday afternoon, with more than 500 people injured. Reports have also said that an unknown number of Israeli citizens and soldiers have been taken captive.
Egypt, meanwhile, cautioned of potentially “grave consequences” that might emerge from a further escalation of tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. Its foreign ministry also called on both sides to exercise “maximum restraint and avoid exposing civilians to further danger.”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday during a congress of his AK Party in Ankara that both sides in the conflict “must refrain from aggressive acts.” He also warned against “any kind of attempt” to damage or harm the “historical and religious status” of Al-Aqsa mosque in the occupied territory of East Jerusalem.
The Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah also issued a statement on Saturday to indicate that it was “in direct contact with the leadership of the Palestinian resistance.” It added that Hamas’ assault could be viewed as a “decisive response to Israel’s continued occupation and a message to those seeking normalization with Israel.”
However, Hezbollah’s statement stopped short of expressing an intention to militarily support the attack.
Egypt, Vietnam and Indonesia among countries sending delegations to four-day DSEI at ExCeL
Europe’s biggest ever arms fair got under way in London on Tuesday with record numbers expected to attend, boosted by interest from countries with controversial human rights records.
Authoritarian Egypt and Vietnam are among those sending delegations, defence sources said, as well as Indonesia and India – all countries whose arms-buying strategies have been affected by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
During the 54th session, Ghana, Fiji, Hungary, Ireland and Uruguay will present a draft resolution on cooperation with the UN. ISHR urges all States to support the adoption of a HRC resolution that strengthens the UN’s responses to reprisals.
On 28 September, the Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, Ilze Brands Kehris, will present the Secretary General’s annual Reprisals Report to the Council in her capacity as UN senior official on reprisals. States raising cases is an important aspect of seeking accountability and ending impunity for acts of reprisal and intimidation against defenders engaging with the UN. It can also send a powerful message of solidarity to defenders, supporting and sustaining their work in repressive environments.
Anexa Alfred Cunningham (Nicaragua), a Miskitu Indigenous leader, woman human rights defender, lawyer and expert on Indigenous peoples rights from Nicaragua, who has been denied entry back into her country since July 2022, when she participated in a session of a group of United Nations experts on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. States should demand that Anexa be permitted to return to her country, community and family and enabled to continue her work safely and without restriction.
Vanessa Mendoza (Andorra), a psychologist and the president of Associació Stop Violències, which focuses on gender-based violence, sexual and reproductive rights, and advocates for safe and legal abortion in Andorra. After engaging with CEDAW in 2019, Vanessa was charged with ‘slander with publicity’, ‘slander against the co-princes’ and ‘crimes against the prestige of the institutions’. She has been indicted for the alleged “crimes against the prestige of the institutions” involving a potentially heavy fine (up to 30,000 euros) and a criminal record if convicted. States should demand that the authorities in Andorra unconditionally drop all charges against Vanessa and amend laws which violate the rights to freedom of expression and association.
Kadar Abdi Ibrahim (Djibouti) is a human rights defender and journalist from Djibouti. He is also the Secretary-General of the political party Movement for Democracy and Freedom (MoDEL). Days after returning from Geneva, where Kadar carried out advocacy activities ahead of Djibouti’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), intelligence service agents raided his house and confiscated his passport. He has thus been banned from travel for five years. States should call on the authorities in Djibouti to lift the travel ban and return Kadar’s passport immediately and unconditionally.
Hong Kong civil society (Hong Kong): Until 2020, civil society in Hong Kong was vibrant and had engaged consistently and constructively with the UN. This engagement came to a screeching halt after the imposition by Beijing of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), which entered into force on 1 July 2020. States should urge the Hong Kong authorities to repeal the offensive National Security Law and desist from criminalizing cooperation with the UN and other work to defend human rights.
Maryam al-Balushi and Amina al-Abduli (United Arab Emirates), Amina Al-Abdouli used to work as a school teacher. She was advocating for the Arab Spring and the Syrian uprising. She is a mother of five. Maryam Al Balushi was a student at the College of Technology. They were arrested for their human rights work, and held in incommunicado detention, tortured and forced into self-incriminatory confessions. After the UN Special Procedures mandate holders sent a letter to the UAE authorities raising concerns about their torture and ill treatment in detention in 2019, the UAE charged Amina and Maryam with three additional crimes. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found their detention arbitrary and a clear case of reprisals for communicating with Special Procedures. In April 2021, a court sentenced them to three additional years of prison for “publishing false information that disturbs the public order”. States should demand that authorities in the UAE immediately and unconditionally release Maryam and Amina and provide them with reparations for their arbitrary detention and ill-treatment.
Other thematic debates
At this 54th session, the Council will discuss a range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and issues through dedicated debates with the:
Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste
ID on HC oral update on drivers, root causes and human rights impacts of religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
In addition, the Council will hold dedicated debates on the rights of specific groups including with the:
Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons
Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Country-specific developments
Afghanistan
The Council will hold an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan on 11 September, and on the OHCHR report on Afghanistan on 12 September, and will consider a resolution on the human rights situation in Afghanistan at this session.
ISHR supports the call of Afghan human rights defenders to the Council to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan. We also support the call to establish a parallel independent investigative mechanism in the upcoming September session and to ensure meaningful follow up to the joint report of the Special Rapporteur and the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, as well as continuation of a dedicated discussion at the Council on the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. Accountability for widespread human rights violations, including gender apartheid and other crimes against humanity, is imperative to securing sustainable peace and development in the country.
Algeria
We urge States to demand that Algeria, a Council member, end its crackdown on human rights defenders and civil society organisations, amend laws aimed at silencing peaceful dissent and stifling civil society, and immediately and unconditionally release arbitrarily detained human rights defenders and activists, including in the interactive dialogue with the Working Group on arbitrary detention. Since the beginning of the Hirak pro-democracy movement, the Working Group has issued at least 6 decisions of arbitrary detention, highlighting Algerian legislation that is inconsistent with international law, violations of due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as violations to the right to freedom of expression, discrimination based on language, ethnicity and religion. They have also condemned Algeria’s abuse of counter-terrorism legislation. States should call on Algeria to implement the recommendations of the working group.
We also urge States to address the case of reprisals against HRDs Kaddour Chouicha and Jamila Loukil, members of the Algerian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LADDH) before its dissolution by the Algerian authorities. They were prevented from traveling to attend the pre-session organized by UPR-info, a clear case of reprisals against human rights defenders attempting to cooperate with the UPR. Chouicha, Loukil and other HRDs are charged in a criminal case, which includes ‘enrollment in a terrorist or subversive organization active abroad or in Algeria’. They are still awaiting trial as the authorities postponed their court session on 15 June 2023. If convicted of these charges, they face up to twenty years imprisonment.
Bahrain
Civil society organisations, including ISHR, have requested States to urge Bahraini authorities to unconditionally release all those sentenced for their political opinions, including human rights defenders Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and Abduljalil Al-Singace, and in the meantime, to ensure that they are provided with life-saving medical care to prevent an imminent tragedy. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/08/20/500-bahraini-prisoners-on-hunger-strike-over-conditions/]
Burundi
The Council will hold an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Burundi on 22 September. As serious human rights violations persist in Burundi and the Government has failed to hold perpetrators accountable or take the concerns raised by Burundian and international actors seriously, the Council should not relax its scrutiny. The Council should extend the Special Rapporteur’s mandate for a further year.
China
31 August marked one year since the release of the groundbreaking OHCHR report finding possible crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. This Council session also marks one year since the failure of the Council, and most of its Council Members, to stand by principle against Beijing’s coercion and promote a dialogue on the human rights of Uyghurs. Since that time, the recommendations of the OHCHR’s report have been echoed by the CERD in its Urgent Action decision on Xinjiang, by the CESCR and CEDAW in their respective Concluding Observations, and by 15 Special Procedures mandates in their seven benchmarks on Xinjiang. Yet, in a surprise visit to the region in August, President Xi Jinping reiterated its hardline policy and called for further efforts to ensure ‘social stability’ and ‘control illegal religious activities’. States should take collective action to urge China to implement key recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, and from relevant UN Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, with a focus on root causes of violations that commonly affect Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hong Kongers and mainland Chinese human rights defenders, including the abuse of national security laws and measures.
States should further ask for the prompt release of human rights defenders targeted by the Chinese government’s renewed crackdown on human rights lawyers, including lawyer Lu Siwei at risk of refoulement from Laos, activists Chang Weiping, Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong, recently convicted to lengthy prison sentences, as well as Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan, detained en route to meet with EU diplomats in Beijing. Ten years after the detention, and subsequent death in custody, of woman human rights defender Cao Shunli on her way to attend China’s UPR in Geneva, the Council must also pierce the veil of impunity for egregious cases of reprisals, and call on China to acknowledge its responsibility, bring perpetrators to justice and provide adequate remedy. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/09/05/human-rights-lawyer-gao-zhisheng-and-the-practice-of-enforced-disappearances-joint-letter/]
Egypt
Recent arrests and arbitrary detention of several media figures, dissidents and their family members in Egypt are indicative of the ongoing crackdown on basic freedoms and liberties in the country, and reflect a lack of genuine political will to improve the human rights situation by the Egyptian government. In the last ten years, Egyptian human rights organisations have recorded the enforced disappearance of no less than 3,000 citizens for varying periods of time, death by mistreatment and medical negligence of at least 1,200 people in detention centers, the sexual assault of at least 655 people and their family members, and the extrajudicial killing of more than 750 people. The continued silence on Egypt by States at the Council will only encourage further violations. NGOs continue to urge States to ensure appropriate action on Egypt at the Council though the establishment of a monitoring and reporting mechanisms on the human rights crises in the country. As an immediate step, States should deliver a follow-up joint statement condemning the human rights situation in the country and calling on the Egyptian government to refrain from continuing to carry out wide-spread human rights violations.
Israel/OPT
While Israel rejected all the recommendations on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and refugee return made by states during its UPR review, States should reiterate their commitment to putting an end to 75 years of denial of the Palestinian’s people inalienable rights to return and self-determination.
During HRC 53, civil society welcomed the resolution put forward by the OIC to ensure the full implementation of the United Nations database of businesses involved in Israeli’s settlement enterprise in the occupied Palestinian territory. States must ensure that the mandate is implemented in full as it represents a question of credibility to the Council, including by ensuring that the budget adopted in the fifth committee of the General Assembly later this year is in line with the programme budget implications (PBI).
Russia
The Council will hold an Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Russian Federation on 21 September. The Council will also be called upon to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur (HRC Resolution 51/25). ISHR strongly supports the renewal of the mandate and urges States to oppose Russia’s candidacy to the Human Rights Council.
The human rights situation in Russia continues to deteriorate, while Russia also continues to perpetrate atrocity crimes in Ukraine In recent months, Russia has enacted laws providing immunity against war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the ‘State’s interests’, intensified its assault against LGBT persons, adopted further measures to repress civil society and silence independent journalists, and continued to arbitrarily imprison human rights defenders. Of further and direct relevance to the Council, Russia adopted a new law on 28 April 2023 which criminalises assistance, cooperation or confidential communications with international bodies, which may include the HRC and its mechanisms. These regressive developments, and the lack of any improvement in the human rights situation in the country, clearly warrant the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
With respect to Russia’s candidacy for the Council, ISHR only campaigns against countries based on strict and objective criteria. Russia manifestly fulfils all of these criteria, being a country: (1) responsible for a pattern of reprisals against those who cooperate with the UN; (2) responsible for the repression of civil society (Russia is ranked as ‘closed’ (scoring 17/100 in the Civicus Monitor); and (3) directly responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine according to the HRC-mandated CoI. On ISHR’s HRC candidate scorecards, Russia scores just 1/20 on objective criteria.
Saudi Arabia
In light of the ongoing diplomatic rehabilitation of crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi authorities’ brazen repression continues to intensify. Some notable recent trends as documented by ALQST include, but are not limited to: the further harsh sentencing against individuals for peaceful social media use, including a death sentence issued against a man for tweets, the prosecution of women such as Manahel al-Otaibi over her choice of clothing and support for women’s rights, the ongoing forcible disappearance of prisoners of conscience including Mohammed al-Qahtani [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/78383825-0b3f-4bca-883a-b81e1baecd09]and Essa al-Nukheifi beyond the expiry of their sentences, and; regressive developments in relation to the death penalty, including a surge in executions (95 individuals were executed in 2023 so far), and several young men at imminent risk of execution for crimes they allegedly committed as minors. Human Rights Watch has documented the brutal massacre of migrants at the Yemen border, in what may amount to further crimes against humanity. ISHR continues to call for States at the Council to adopt a resolution mandating an independent international monitoring and investigative mechanism on massive human rights violations perpetrated in and by Saudi Arabia.
Sudan
On 12 September, the Council will hold Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner’s oral update on Sudan.
Sudanese Women Rights Action published a report “laying an overview of the conditions of women’s rights and gender equality in Sudan as an extended crisis started on October 25th, 2021, when the military took over the power in Sudan, ending the transitional period on a bloody note…the report presents verified information about the crises scope, context, and responses from a gender perspective based on the needs on the grounds, the challenges, and the recommended interventions according to local actors and women activists.” ISHR urges the implementation of the recommendations identified by women activists including to “Pressure both fighting parties to commit to sustainable Ceasefire; Pressure the fighting parties to open humanitarian corridors; Provide urgent funding to the humanitarian aid interventions; Ensure protection and evacuation of women and WHRDs from fighting areas”. Ahead of HRC54, ISHR joined over 110 NGOs in reiterating a call on the Council to establish an independent investigative mechanism on Sudan with a mandate to investigate human rights violations and abuses in Sudan, collect and preserve evidence, and identify those responsible.
Tunisia
We regret that the Council failed to exercise its prevention mandate and address the deteriorating human rights situation in Tunisia during HRC 53, during which the High Commissioner and UN Special Procedures raised alarm at the escalating pattern of human rights violations and the rapidly worsening situation in Tunisia following President Kais Saied’s power grab on 25 July 2021. In the last two years in Tunisia there has been a significant erosion of the rule of law, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, reprisals against independent judges and lawyers and judges associations, a crackdown on peaceful political opposition and abusive use of “counter-terrorism” law in politicised prosecutions, as well as attacks on freedom of expression and threats to freedom of association.
In an open letter against the “Memorandum of Understanding on a Strategic and Comprehensive Partnership between the European Union (EU) and Tunisia” and against the EU’s border externalisation policies, 379 researchers and members of civil society decried the use of vulnerable populations as scapegoats to mask the failures of public policy in Tunisia. While Tunisian authorities were persecuting Black African foreign nationals, including migrants, asylum seekers and refugees – deporting at least 1,200 sub-Saharan nationals to the borders with Libya and Algeria, in inaccessible and militarised desert zones, leaving them abandoned without water and food – the signing of the Memorandum effectively gave Tunisia “a blank check, following a strategy that is all the more irresponsible given its inefficacy”. Unless States tackle “the structural socio-economic causes of so-called irregular migration”, and radically rethink access to mobility, “this security approach to border management will only make crossings more deadly and strengthen smugglers”. Addressing these grave violations cannot be done without also urgently addressing the rule of law crisis in the country.
Venezuela
The UN’s fact-finding mission on Venezuela (FFM) will report to the Council on 25 and 26 September. The Mission will focus on the situation for human rights defenders in the country – an essential focus given the existing and proposed legislation adversely affecting civic space, and the threats and attacks HRDs face. The recent sentencing of 6 union leaders, denounced by UN Special Rapporteurs, is a clear example of the criminalisation of HRDs, as is the continued detention of the HRD Javier Tarazona, since July 2021, and that of many other real or perceived opposition figures. The continuing impunity in regard to the killing of defender Virgilio Trujillo Arana a year ago is an example of how little will exists to prevent attacks against HRDs.
In its first report in 2020, the FFM stated that it had reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity had been carried out in Venezuela, with the principal targets of violations including social activists and political leaders at the forefront of protests. The recommendations made by the FFM at that time have not been implemented. We recall that Venezuela continues to refuse to engage with the FFM or allow it to enter the country.
States must participate in the interactive dialogue with the FFM to highlight the essential role of HRDs; express utmost concern at the ongoing, systematic threats, attacks and restrictions against civic space, and urge the Venezuelan authorities to take immediate steps to implement the recommendations issued by the UN human rights system. States must speak out forcefully in support of the FFM and its work, and encourage other states to do the same. This vital accountability mandate must be supported and its recommendations echoed, so that victims of violations in the country can believe that one day justice will be done.
Other country situations:
The High Commissioner will provide an oral update to the Council on 11 September 2023. The Council will consider updates, reports and is expected to consider resolutions addressing a range of country situations, in some instances involving the renewal of the relevant expert mandates. These include:
Interactive Dialogue on the report of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar and Interactive Dialogue on the OHCHR report on Myanmar
Interactive Dialogue on the report of the High Commissioner on Nicaragua and oral update by the Group of Experts on Nicaragua
Interactive Dialogue on the report of the OHCHR on Sri Lanka
Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia
Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic
Interactive Dialogue on the interim oral update of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Belarus
Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine and Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner oral update on Ukraine
Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on the report of the High Commissioner and experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo
Interactive Dialogue on the oral update of OHCHR on technical assistance and capacity-building for South Sudan
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia and presentation of the Secretary-General’s report
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Somalia
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on the Central African Republic
Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on the interim report on Haiti
Presentation of the High Commissioner’s report on cooperation with Georgia
Presentation of the High Commissioner’s report on cooperation with Yemen
Council programme, appointments and resolutions
Appointment of mandate holders
The President of the Human Rights Council has proposed candidates for the following mandates:
Special Rapporteur on minority issues
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity
Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, several members
Resolutions to be presented to the Council’s 54th session
At the organisational meeting on 28 August resolutions were announced (States leading the resolution in brackets):
From rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (Africa Group)
Technical assistance and capacity-building in the field of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Africa Group)
Question of the death penalty (Benin, Belgium, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Mongolia, Republic of Moldova, Switzerland)
Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence – mandate renewal (Argentina, Morocco, Switzerland)
Human rights and Indigenous Peoples (Guatemala, Mexico)
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan – mandate renewal (EU)
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi – mandate renewal (EU)
Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances – mandate renewal (Argentina, France, Japan, Morocco)
Implementation of the UN declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas (Bolivia)
Technical assistance and capacity-building for Yemen in the field of human rights (Lebanon on behalf of the Arab Group)
Special Rapporteur on Russia – mandate renewal (Luxembourg on behalf of 26 EU countries)
Right to privacy in the digital age (Austria, Brazil, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico)
A world of sports free from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (Brazil and Africa Group)
Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights (Fiji, Ghana, Hungary, Ireland, Uruguay)
The core group on Sudan (Germany, Norway, UK, US) announced that they are considering presenting a resolution on Sudan at this session. The core group on Syria (Germany, France, Italy, Jordan, Netherlands, Qatar, Turkiye, UK, USA) also announced that they are considering presenting a resolution on the human rights situation in Syria.
Read here the three year programme of work of the Council with supplementary information.
Read here ISHR’s recommendations on the key issues that are or should be on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council in 2023.
Lawyers for family say Saudi government took brother’s data in breach and ‘arrested, tortured, and imprisoned’ him and others
The company formerly known as Twitter is “unfit” to hold banking licenses because of its alleged “intentional complicity” with human rights violations in Saudi Arabia and treatment of users’ personal data, according to an open letter sent to federal and state banking regulators that was signed by a law firm representing a Saudi victim’s family.
The allegations by lawyers representing Areej al-Sadhan, whose brother Abdulrahman was one of thousands of Saudis whose confidential personal information was obtained by Saudi agents posing as Twitter employees in 2014-15, comes as Twitter Payments LLC, a subsidiary of X (the company formerly known as Twitter), is in the process of applying for money-transmitter licenses across the US.
The Saudis picked us up from the detention center in Daer and put us in a minibus going back to the Yemen border. When they released us, they created a kind of chaos; they screamed at us to “get out of the car and get away.” … this is when they started to fire mortars – to keep us into the mountain line, they fired the mortar from left and right. When we were one kilometer away, … We were resting together after running a lot…and that’s when they fired mortars on our group. Directly at us. There were 20 in our group and only ten survived. Some of the mortars hit the rocks and then the [fragments of the] rock hit us… They fired on us like rain.
— Munira, 20 years old
“Rather than assist people afflicted by droughts, impoverishment and intensifying wars, the United States is acting in its own perceived self-interests and entertaining Saudi demands for even more military power.”
There’s a refugee trail from the Sahel drought region in Africa, into war-ravaged Yemen, and up through Saudi Arabia towards Iraq and Turkey. It’s known as “the Eastern route,” or sometimes “the Yemeni route.” The Saudi monarchy, already leading an eight-year starvation and bombardment campaign against Iran-aligned, rebel-governed Yemen, has been massacring Ethiopian (and other African) refugees, allegedly in the thousands, to send a message that drought-stricken Africans should choose to die at home and not risk their lives to die in Yemen. It’s a chilling, cruel message.
U.S. imperial policies in the region, which have propped up the brutal Saudi monarchy, ensure continued bloodshed, hunger, division and destabilization. These degenerate policies undermine desperately needed collaboration in the face of ecological collapse. Rather than assist people afflicted by droughts, impoverishment and intensifying wars, the United States is acting in its own perceived self-interests and entertaining Saudi demands for even more military power. The purpose of wooing Saudi Arabia with military contracts is, apparently, to head off a further economic integration of Saudi Arabia with China and Russia, global rivals of the United States.
Sometime during the week of September 3, two U.S. State department representatives will arrive in Saudi Arabia’s capital city, Riyadh, to resume negotiations with the Saudi royals. A recent report suggests that the meetings will discuss a NATO-like agreement between Saudi Arabia and the United States, a measure which might then move Saudi Arabia closer toward normalizing relations with Israel. What does Riyadh seek in return? “Riyadh has been seeking a NATO-like mutual security treaty that would obligate the US to come to Saudi Arabia’s defense if the latter is attacked,” according to The Times of Israel. The Saudis also seek to strengthen a US-backed civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia and they want assurance about acquiring more advanced weaponry from U.S. military contractors.
At the recent summit of the BRICS+ coalition led by U.S. rival, China, Saudi Arabia was announced as a new member to join in January 2024. Earlier this year China had brokered a resumption of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and its (and the U.S.’) chief regional rival, Iran, which has also been invited to join BRICS+ early next year. The U.S. State Department’s Brett McGurk and Barbara Leaf, in their Riyadh trip, will be working to counter integration of the oil-rich Saudi nation into a coalition of nations the U.S. fears as threats to U.S. unipolar hegemony. Routinely, the United States condemns China and Russia for human rights abuses, – abuses paling beside the worst of Saudi Arabia’s.
Since 2015, Saudi Arabia has bombed, starved, blockaded and tortured Yemeni civilians. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia continues to persecute and execute its own civilians for speaking out about cruel wrongdoings.
Human Rights Watch, in their 73-page report, “‘They Fired on Us Like Rain’: Saudi Arabian Mass Killings of Ethiopian Migrants at the Yemen-Saudi Border,” alleges that Saudi Arabian border guards have fired machine guns and launched mortars at Ethiopians trying to cross into the kingdom from Yemen, likely killing hundreds of the unarmed migrants in recent years. This widespread and systematic pattern of attacks featured incidents, the report states, when “Saudi border guards asked migrants what limb to shoot, and then shot them at close range. Saudi border guards also fired explosive weapons at migrants who were attempting to flee back to Yemen.” The rights group cited eyewitness reports of attacks by troops and images that showed dead bodies and burial sites on migrant routes, saying the death toll could amount to “possibly thousands”.
Also of interest to the two U.S. envoys should be a report from the Guardian which says the U.S. and German militaries have trained and equipped Saudi border guards.
There is a reason for the massive migrant flight from the Sahel into the killing zone that Saudi Arabia, with its international partners, has made of Yemen: The planet is boiling.
Collaboration is surely needed among all peoples in order to cope with and solve the tragic problems, including horrific human rights abuses, certain to escalate because of intensifying climate catastrophes. But military agreements with Saudi Arabia will increase the readiness of Saudi Arabia to attack weaker countries and persecute its own citizenry. Green lighting development of nuclear technology will exacerbate the environmental assaults caused by war. The United States’ policy of confrontation to beat down economic rivals can only worsen these crises.
During years when the United States collaborated with and armed dictators, militaries and paramilitaries in Central and South America, several notable leaders demanded an end to the violence. El Salvador’s Archbishop Oscar Romero, now canonized as a saint, spoke up:
I would like to appeal in a special way to the men of the army, and in particular to the troops of the National Guard, the police, and the garrisons. Brothers, you belong to our own people. You kill your own brother peasants; and in the face of an order to kill that is given by a man, the law of God that says ‘Do not kill!’ should prevail.
No soldier is obliged to obey an order counter to the law of God. No one has to comply with an immoral law. It is the time now that you recover your conscience and obey its dictates rather than the command of sin. . . . Therefore, in the name of God, and in the name of this long-suffering people, whose laments rise to heaven every day more tumultuous, I beseech you, I beg you, I command you! In the name of God: ‘Cease the repression!’
In a sense, he signed his own death warrant when he signed this statement. On March 24, 1980, Romero was assassinated for his courageous words and deeds.
President Joe Biden would do well to heed this Catholic saint, revise the mandate he gives to diplomats working in Saudi Arabia, and rely on Archbishop Romero’s words: Recover your conscience! Stop the repression, stop the killing.
Rather than normalize militarism and human rights abuses, the United States should seek, always and everywhere, to salvage the planet and respect human rights.
The Bombing of a Neighborhood in Yemen, December 28, 2017 (Photo Credit: Aida Fallace)
Statement comes amid concern about allegations Saudi forces have killed hundreds of migrants
Germany ended a training programme for Saudi border forces, who have been implicated in the mass killing of migrants at the country’s border with Yemen, after it was alerted to reports of “possible massive human rights violations”, the German interior ministry has said.
In a statement to the Guardian, the ministry said training undertaken by the federal police service for the Saudi border force had been “discontinued after reports of possible massive human rights violations became known and, as a precaution, are no longer included in the current training programme [for Saudi security forces]”.
Abdel Hadi el-Gazzar (Egypt), The Popular Chorus or Food or Comrades on the Theatre of Life, 1948 (post-dated 1951).
On the last day of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, the five founding states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) welcomed six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The BRICS partnership now encompasses 47.3 percent of the world’s population, with a combined global Gross Domestic Product (by purchasing power parity, or PPP,) of 36.4 percent. In comparison, though the G7 states (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) account for merely 10 percent of the world’s population, their share of the global GDP (by PPP) is 30.4 percent. In 2021, the nations that today form the expanded BRICS group were responsible for 38.3 percent of global industrial output while their G7 counterparts accounted for 30.5 percent. All available indicators, including harvest production and the total volume of metal production, show the immense power of this new grouping. Celso Amorim, advisor to the Brazilian government and one of the architects of BRICS during his former tenure as foreign minister, said of the new development that ‘[t]he world can no longer be dictated by the G7’.
Certainly, the BRICS nations, for all their internal hierarchies and challenges, now represent a larger share of the global GDP than the G7, which continues to behave as the world’s executive body. Over forty countries expressed an interest in joining BRICS, although only twenty-three applied for membership before the South Africa meeting (including seven of the thirteen countries in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC). Indonesia, the world’s seventh largest country in terms of GDP (by PPP), withdrew its application to BRICS at the last moment but said it would consider joining later. Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo’s comments reflect the mood of the summit: ‘We must reject trade discrimination. Industrial downstreaming must not be hindered. We must all continue to voice equal and inclusive cooperation’.
Tadesse Mesfin (Ethiopia), Pillars of Life: Waiting, 2018
BRICS does not operate independently of new regional formations that aim to build platforms outside the grip of the West, such as the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Instead, BRICS membership has the potential to enhance regionalism for those already within these regional fora. Both sets of interregional bodies are leaning into a historical tide supported by important data, analysed by Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research using a range of widely available and reliable global databases. The facts are clear: the Global North’s percentage of world GDP fell from 57.3 percent in 1993 to 40.6 percent in 2022, with the US’s percentage shrinking from 19.7 percent to only 15.6 percent of global GDP (by PPP) in the same period – despite its monopoly privilege. In 2022, the Global South, without China, had a GDP (by PPP) greater than that of the Global North.
The West, perhaps because of its rapid relative economic decline, is struggling to maintain its hegemony by driving a New Cold War against emergent states such as China. Perhaps the single best evidence of the racial, political, military, and economic plans of the Western powers can be summed up by a recent declaration of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union (EU): ‘NATO and the EU play complementary, coherent and mutually reinforcing roles in supporting international peace and security. We will further mobilise the combined set of instruments at our disposal, be they political, economic, or military, to pursue our common objectives to the benefit of our one billion citizens’.
Alia Ahmad (Saudi Arabia), Hameel – Morning Rain, 2022
Why did BRICS welcome such a disparate group of countries, including two monarchies, into its fold? When asked to reflect on the character of the new full member states, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said, ‘What matters is not the person who governs but the importance of the country. We can’t deny the geopolitical importance of Iran and other countries that will join BRICS’. This is the measure of how the founding countries made the decision to expand their alliance. At the heart of BRICS’s growth are at least three issues: control over energy supplies and pathways, control over global financial and development systems, and control over institutions for peace and security.
Houshang Pezeshknia (Iran), Khark, 1958
A larger BRICS has now created a formidable energy group. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are also members of OPEC, which, with Russia, a key member of OPEC+, now accounts for 26.3 million barrels of oil per day, just below thirty percent of global daily oil production. Egypt, which is not an OPEC member, is nonetheless one of the largest African oil producers, with an output of 567,650 barrels per day. China’s role in brokering a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia in April enabled the entry of both of these oil-producing countries into BRICS. The issue here is not just the production of oil, but the establishment of new global energy pathways.
The Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative has already created a web of oil and natural gas platforms around the Global South, integrated into the expansion of Khalifa Port and natural gas facilities at Fujairah and Ruwais in the UAE, alongside the development of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030. There is every expectation that the expanded BRICS will begin to coordinate its energy infrastructure outside of OPEC+, including the volumes of oil and natural gas that are drawn out of the earth. Tensions between Russia and Saudi Arabia over oil volumes have simmered this year as Russia exceeded its quota to compensate for Western sanctions placed on it due to the war in Ukraine. Now these two countries will have another forum, outside of OPEC+ and with China at the table, to build a common agenda on energy. Saudi Arabia plans to sell oil to China in renminbi (RMB), undermining the structure of the petrodollar system (China’s two other main oil providers, Iraq and Russia, already receive payment in RMB).
Juan Del Prete (Argentina), The Embrace, 1937–1944
Both the discussions at the BRICS summit and its final communiqué focused on the need to strengthen a financial and development architecture for the world that is not governed by the triumvirate of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Wall Street, and the US dollar. However, BRICS does not seek to circumvent established global trade and development institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the World Bank, and the IMF. For instance, BRICS reaffirmed the importance of the ‘rules-based multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organisation at its core’ and called for ‘a robust Global Financial Safety Net with a quota-based and adequately resourced [IMF] at its centre’. Its proposals do not fundamentally break with the IMF or WTO; rather, they offer a dual pathway forward: first, for BRICS to exert more control and direction over these organisations, of which they are members but have been suborned to a Western agenda, and second, for BRICS states to realise their aspirations to build their own parallel institutions (such as the New Development Bank, or NDB). Saudi Arabia’s massive investment fund is worth close to $1 trillion, which could partially resource the NDB.
BRICS’s agenda to improve ‘the stability, reliability, and fairness of the global financial architecture’ is mostly being carried forward by the ‘use of local currencies, alternative financial arrangements, and alternative payment systems’. The concept of ‘local currencies’ refers to the growing practice of states using their own currencies for cross-border trade rather than relying upon the dollar. Though approximately 150 currencies in the world are considered to be legal tender, cross-border payments almost always rely on the dollar (which, as of 2021, accounts for 40 percent of flows over the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or SWIFT, network).
Other currencies play a limited role, with the Chinese RMB comprising 2.5 percent of cross-border payments. However, the emergence of new global messaging platforms – such as China’s Cross-Border Payment Interbank System, India’s Unified Payments Interface, and Russia’s Financial Messaging System (SPFS) – as well as regional digital currency systems promise to increase the use of alternative currencies. For instance, cryptocurrency assets briefly provided a potential avenue for new trading systems before their asset valuations declined, and the expanded BRICS recently approved the establishment of a working group to study a BRICS reference currency.
Following the expansion of BRICS, the NDB said that it will also expand its members and that, as its General Strategy, 2022–2026 notes, thirty percent of all of its financing will be in local currencies. As part of its framework for a new development system, its president, Dilma Rousseff, said that the NDB will not follow the IMF policy of imposing conditions on borrowing countries. ‘We repudiate any kind of conditionality’, Rousseff said. ‘Often a loan is given upon the condition that certain policies are carried out. We don’t do that. We respect the policies of each country’.
Amir H. Fallah (Iran), I Want To Live, To Cry, To Survive, To Love, To Die, 2023
In their communiqué, the BRICS nations write about the importance of ‘comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council’. Currently, the UN Security Council has fifteen members, five of which are permanent (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US). There are no permanent members from Africa, Latin America, or the most populous country in the world, India. To repair these inequities, BRICS offers its support to ‘the legitimate aspirations of emerging and developing countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, including Brazil, India, and South Africa to play a greater role in international affairs’. The West’s refusal to allow these countries a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has only strengthened their commitment to the BRICS process and to enhance their role in the G20.
The entry of Ethiopia and Iran into BRICS shows how these large Global South states are reacting to the West’s sanctions policy against dozens of countries, including two founding BRICS members (China and Russia). The Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter – Venezuela’s initiative from 2019 – brings together twenty UN member states that are facing the brunt of illegal US sanctions, from Algeria to Zimbabwe. Many of these states attended the BRICS summit as invitees and are eager to join the expanded BRICS as full members.
We are not living in a period of revolutions. Socialists always seek to advance democratic and progressive trends. As is often the case in history, the actions of a dying empire create common ground for its victims to look for new alternatives, no matter how embryonic and contradictory they are. The diversity of support for the expansion of BRICS is an indication of the growing loss of political hegemony of imperialism.
The world’s most prolific fossil fuel major is guilty of human rights violations along with its crimes against the climate. Who’d have guessed?
United Nations (UN) experts have written to oil firm Saudi Aramco and its financial backers challenging them on climate crisis-related human rights violations.
On Saturday 26 August, the UN published a cache of correspondence on its human rights special procedures website. The letters said UN experts had received information:
concerning Saudi Aramco’s business activities… which are adversely impacting the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change
Crucially, the allegations accused Saudi Aramco of having:
maintained crude oil production, exploration for further oil and gas reserves, expansion into fossil fuel gas, and misrepresentation of information
Furthermore, the UN argued that:
Such activities have negative impacts on the enjoyment of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
A number of experts, including the UN working group, sent the letters to Saudi Aramco and its backers on 26 June 2023. The letter signatories included special rapporteurs on human rights and transnational corporations, human rights and climate change, a clean and sustainable environment, management of hazardous substances, and safe drinking water and sanitation.
Largest emitter of greenhouse gases
The letters asserted that fossil fuels account for more than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Crucially, the letters cited reports that claimed just 25 fossil fuel business enterprises are responsible for over half of these. They highlighted that Saudi Aramco ranks as the largest emitter. As a result, one letter stated that:
through its historic emissions, it is alleged that Saudi Aramco has already significantly contributed to adverse climate change-related human rights impacts.
On top of this, the letter highlighted the company’s current production and future plans further jeopardised human rights. It noted that:
The company’s current exploitation of fossil fuels and proposed business plans will continue to cause adverse climate change-related human rights impacts.
The UN experts also alleged that Saudi Aramco’s activities appear to be:
contrary to the goals, obligations and commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change
Nations signed the accord in 2015 and set the target of limiting the world to a temperature increase of 1.5°c above pre-industrial temperatures.
Moreover, Saudi Aramco’s:
refusal to reduce its production of oil and gas – and continued exploration for more oil and gas – contributes to the risk of overshoot of the 1.5C carbon budget, with resultant significantly worsened climate change-related human rights impacts
Greenwashing climate efforts
Saudi Aramco is the main source of revenue for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s sweeping economic and social reform programme. Known as Vision 2030, the programme supposedly aims to shift the economy away from fossil fuels. However, the largely state-owned Aramco is undertaking investments to ramp up national production capacity to 13 million barrels per day by 2027.
On top of this, one letter accused the company of engaging in greenwashing. It noted that:
Saudi Aramco presents misleading information, including the premise that sustainability is a core concern of its business strategy, through widespread marketing and advertising.
In particular, this pertained to its failure to report its ‘scope 3’ emissions. These are downstream emissions that consumers generate from the burning of its products. As the Canaryhas previously reported, fossil fuel majors regularly omit these emissions from their greenhouse gas reporting, as they would account for the bulk of their GHG emissions.
This was a fact noted in the UN communication, which stated that Saudi Aramco’s:
Scope 3 emissions account for the vast majority of company’s emissions
As a result, the letter concluded that:
The harm can be aggravated where greenwashing inhibits climate action, as the messages promoted oppose or distract from the goal of reducing society’s dependence and consumption of fossil fuels.
Financial enablers of climate and human rights violations
The UN experts claimed that Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, along with 11 major international banks, investment banks and firms, were funding these activities.
The UN experts also sent letters to the home states of the company’s financiers in Britain, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United States. These included JPMorgan, Citi, HSBC, SMBC, Crédit Agricole, Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas, Goldman Sachs, Mizuho, Société Générale, and EIG Global Energy Partners.
In 2021, environmental law firm ClientEarth filed a legal complaint against the Aramco and its financial backers. The organisation highlighted that:
Since 2019, the company has raised more than $70 billion through equity, bonds, and bank loans.
In 2022, Saudi Aramco reported record profits totalling $161.1 billion. This was the largest ever recorded profit for a fossil fuel firm. ClientEarth said that the UN’s letters showed that:
The banks must act on Aramco’s role in climate human rights harms. They should be using their leverage to prevent the oil giant from continuing to fuel human rights violations. That means Aramco ending its pursuit of fossil fuel expansion and aligning with the Paris Agreement. And if the banks lack sufficient leverage, they must consider terminating their relationships with the company.
Prolific record of human rights abuse
Primarily, the letters focused on the state company’s contribution to the climate crisis and the resulting violations of human rights owing to climate impacts. However, the state-owned oil giant also provides enormous revenue to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As Amnesty International has previously detailed, the Saudi government:
has an extensive and appalling record of human rights abuses, including executions, arbitrary arrests, detention without trial, torture, the suppression of free assembly and free expression, discrimination based on gender, and the criminalization of LGBTI people.
Moreover, as the Canaryhas consistently reported, Saudi Arabia continues to wage its criminal war on Yemen.
Back in 2019, a coalition of environmental non-profits wrote to several banks that were intending to finance the company. The group stated that it was concerned by the banks’:
Eagerness to help raise billions of dollars for Saudi Arabia given the horrendous human rights record of the Saudi regime.
Specifically, the group referenced the “brutal murder” of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the “indiscriminate airstrikes on civilians in Yemen”. Of course, the UN communication called out many of these same banks.
Given that the nations where they are headquartered supply finance and arms to the Saudi regime, their continued support for its state oil company is perhaps unsurprising. Moreover, Western banks’ involvement in Saudi Arabia’s oil riches tracks with their backing of the regime’s war in Yemen. As the Canarypreviously noted:
the oil and gas industry sits at the heart of the Western-backed war on Yemen. Specifically, Western nations view the Bab el-Mandeb Strait off the coast of Yemen as a key oil shipping lane. Moreover, Saudi Arabia intends to build an oil pipeline through Yemen to enable greater exports.
Impacts on the marginalised groups in the region
In addition, a letter noted that the area is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis. Referencing various reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it detailed the particular dangerous effects of climate-fueled extreme weather events in the region. This would include desertification, extreme heat, drought, sea level rise, and water stress.
It explained that:
These scenarios would disproportionately impact vulnerable populations such as children, older persons, and migrants (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia hosts the third largest migrant population in the world).
A Lancet Planetary Health study in April corroborated the IPCC warnings for the need to slash emissions. It also found that cutting emissions to keep below temperature rises of 2°c would prevent 80% of heat-related deaths in the region.
Saudi Aramco and its financiers are therefore complicit in a multitude of climate-related human rights violations. The UN issued its letters and called for the oil giant to respond within 60 days. At present, the UN’s website has not published a response. However, the only answer Aramco can give that will resolve its rampant climate crisis-fueled human rights abuse is a commitment to its own abolition – and what are the chances of that?
Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse.
Feature image via Suresh Babunair/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY 3.0
We know what the regime is like. Starving a country, bombing its hospitals and strafing its schools has been minor fare for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The population of Yemen has found this out to their colossal cost. Add to this the killing of dissident journalists, the enthusiastic employment of capital punishment, and an assortment of other merry brutalities, the House of Saud comes across as a fine specimen of barbaric endeavour. At least, as many of their supporters will say, they like international sporting events, and are willing to throw money at, if not completely purchase, full events.
The killing of hundreds of Ethiopian migrants and asylum seekers attempting to cross the Yemen-Saudi border between March 2022 and June 2023 on what is sometimes termed the “Eastern Route” or “Yemeni Route”, adds another notch to the belt of bloodstained achievements for Riyadh. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), “Saudi officials are killing hundreds of women and children out of view of the rest of the world while they spend billions on sports-washing to try to improve their image.”
This is all the more galling for the fact that such human travellers must already encounter the dangers of the sea route from the Horn of Africa to Yemen, where they transit through to Saudi Arabia.
HRW’s “They Fired Upon Us Like Rain”: Saudi Arabian Mass Killings of Ethiopian Migrants at the Yemen-Saudi Border, is a self-explanatory document of brutal recounting by the human rights organisation, based on the interviews of 42 Ethiopian and asylum seekers. In addition to the interviews, HRW also based its report on findings drawn from an examination of 350 videos and photographs which were posted on social media platforms.
The examination had been conducted by members of the Independent Forensic Expert Group (IFEG) of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims. In terms of injuries, IFEG members reached the conclusion that some exhibited “clear patterns consistent with the explosion of munitions with capacity to produce heat and fragmentation”; others had “characteristics consistent with gunshot wounds”.
The 2023 report by the organisation notes some staggering instances of violence against those seeking refuge. “People travelling in groups, from four to five people to up to several hundred describe being attacked by mortar projectiles and other explosive weapons by Saudi border guards once they had crossed the border from Yemen into Saudi Arabia.”
The allegations are biting in their cruelty, and bring to mind the fact that killings of this sort have happened before along this notorious route. Saudi border guards, it would seem, went so far as to deploy an array of weapons against such migrants, showing a keen interest targeting Ethiopians. Some 750,000 live and work in the kingdom. Movement through the borders is based on the less than scrupulous calculations and account keeping of smugglers.
Those interviewed in the camp of Saada, base for tens of thousands awaiting their chance to enter Saudi Arabia, note how Saudi border guards tended to patrol the border equipped with “large vehicles” that could have been rocket launchers. “Many migrants,” the report also notes, “said they saw cameras tracking their movements mounted on what looked like ‘street lamps’ on the Saudi side of the border.”
Some of the brutalities are calculatingly perverse. According to HRW, some Saudi border guards dared to discriminate, bothering to first ask “survivors in which limb of their body they preferred to be shot, before shooting them at close range.” Such viciousness sounds boardroom, spreadsheet and planned, which is exactly the sort of matter that should leave a trail right to the Kingdom’s central authorities. But it could also be burgeoning sadism at work, an instant where the powerful can determine what bit of maiming might excite them.
For Ethiopians moving through the precarious route, the circumstances of misery have been frequent. While Riyadh engages in its own complement of viciousness, the Yemeni guards have also had a hand in raping and torturing asylum seekers from the Horn of Africa. Houthi forces have not been averse to targeting immigration centres in Sana’a.
The spectacle recounted by HRW is grotesque. But so are acts involving the turning back of refugee-laden boats or repulsing migrant vessels in the Mediterranean, and conspiring to frustrate the international right to asylum which has been in print since 1951. Little wonder that little mention was made of the killings when they were made aware to envoys from France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the European Union, not to mention the Biden administration. (The US State Department insists that it “quickly engaged senior Saudi officials to express our concern” on receiving news on the gruesome details.)
In August 2001, the Australian government, a most eminent practitioner in the field of subverting international refugee law, did not deploy rocket launchers against those seeking asylum off Christmas Island on the Norwegian vessel, the MV Tampa. But they did deploy fully armed members of the Special Air Services regiment, an elite force that would go on to, some years later, inflict atrocities upon Afghans in an unwinnable war.
This HRW Report adds another bloodied entry to the chronicles of the Kingdom’s brutality. The organisation claims that the killings continue. The sanguinary story is a telling one for those who continue to conduct relations with Riyadh without murmur or concern, delighted by the riches of its Sovereign Wealth Fund. Its officials know all too well that cash and the expediency of security softens a prickly conscience.
Report by Human Rights Watch details alleged attacks using explosive weapons and small arms on Saudi Arabia-Yemen border
Saudi border guards have been accused of killing hundreds of Ethiopians using small arms and explosive weapons in a targeted campaign that rights advocates suggest may amount to a crime against humanity.
The shocking claims are made in a detailed investigation by Human Rights Watch, which interviewed dozens of Ethiopian people who said they were attacked by border guards while they tried to cross into Saudi Arabia from Yemen.
Exclusive: Media company recently signed lucrative deal with Saudi government-controlled MBC Group
Vice has repeatedly blocked news stories that could offend the Saudi government, leaving its reporters unsure if they are still able to report freely on the kingdom’s human rights abuses, sources have said.
The media company recently signed a lucrative partnership deal with the MBC Group, a media company controlled by the Saudi government, to establish a joint venture in the Middle Eastern country. Of the 29 jobs currently advertised on Vice’s careers page, 20 are based in the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh.
As rural Arizonans face the prospect of wells running dry, foreign firms are sucking up vast amounts of the state’s groundwater to grow hay for Saudi Arabia and other wealthy nations. Now it turns out that a key investor in this water transfer scheme is Arizona’s own employee retirement fund. In La Paz County, a rural community about 100 miles west of Phoenix, Al Dahra Farms USA has been running a…
As the Biden administration continues to pursue a normalization deal with Israel and Saudi Arabia, supporters of a U.S. security guarantee for the Saudis have started making their case in public. The Israeli foreign minister, Eli Cohen, took to the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal earlier this week to sell a U.S. defense commitment to Riyadh as “the foundation upon which true regional…
As rural Arizonans face the prospect of wells running dry, foreign firms are sucking up vast amounts of the state’s groundwater to grow hay for Saudi Arabia and other wealthy nations. Now it turns out that a key investor in this water transfer scheme is Arizona’s own employee retirement fund.
In La Paz County, a rural community about 100 miles west of Phoenix, Al Dahra Farms USA has been running a 3,000-acre farming operation in the Sonoran desert, draining down the same groundwater that the county’s residents rely on to fill their wells. The Emirati-owned farming company tapped into a former public water supply in 2013 to grow hay that gets shipped to countries in Asia and the Middle East.
The state of Arizona helped fund the land deal that allowed Al Dahra to tap into the groundwater in La Paz County, according to records obtained by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. The state’s retirement system invested $175 million in 2012 into an East Coast company that bought about 20 square miles of land that had previously been set aside as a public water source. The company, International Farming Corporation, then leased some of the land to Al Dahra.
Al Dahra is now a key player in the booming business of tapping into Arizona’s limited water to grow hay that gets shipped overseas, which economists say is the equivalent of exporting the state’s scarce water. A Saudi-owned farm, which is also in La Paz County, has made international news for growing hay in the parched Sonoran desert even as Saudi Arabia has severely restricted its own hay production due to its water scarcity. But in Arizona, hay exports have increased nearly 100-fold in the last 10 years. The water used to grow the exported hay last year was equivalent to the water used by about one million people in the state, according to a recent paper from researchers at the University of Arizona.
The state’s investment into exporting its own water comes as the region faces ongoing water shortages. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs announced this year that parts of the metro Phoenix area don’t have enough water to continue building new houses amidst ongoing groundwater depletion. The state also faces the likelihood of further reductions in water supplied from the dwindling Colorado River.
Since the state-funded investment company bought the land in La Paz County, it has drilled new, deeper wells. People living nearby say they are now losing access to their only source of water, their groundwater, as the water table drops as a result of the intensive farming. As their wells go dry, they are faced with tough choices. Some homeowners spend tens of thousands of dollars to drill their wells deeper, or have water trucked in. Others just leave.
“The stakes are our future,” said Holly Irwin, one of three elected supervisors in La Paz County who has been pushing back against the expanding hay farm. “We have a right to be here too, and not just those with the big bucks.”
Irwin said the state-funded project is threatening to destroy the rural way of life in this part of the Sonoran desert. She was outraged when presented with documents from the Reveal investigation showing her own retirement money was invested in the very scheme she was fighting to stop.
“It makes me angry, you know. It’s unbelievable that the state can do that with our retirement fund,” Irwin said. “I’ve been fighting for years to keep the water here, and it’s just frustrating everywhere you look around, you know that this water is being depleted and alfalfa hay is being shipped overseas.”
La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin, who is fighting to conserve groundwater in rural Arizona, talks about water issues with diners at Don’s Historic Cactus Bar & Restaurant in Salome, Ariz., in 2020. Credit: Jonathan Ingalls
Despite Water Impact, State Prioritized ‘Maximizing Returns’
La Paz County is a largely low-income part of the state, but it has a very valuable asset: an aquifer with water that has been targeted by wealthy cities, billion-dollar investment and farm companies, and the state’s own $49 billion retirement fund.
Many communities in the county rely entirely on the aquifer to supply their homes with water for drinking, showering and all their other needs. Arizona law allows homeowners, businesses and farms to drill wells on their own properties and pump up as much water as they want. The unregulated aquifer has attracted investors and farmers from far and wide.
In 1986, the roughly 20 square miles of land in La Paz County was purchased by the city of Phoenix to serve as a backup for its own municipal water supply. The city estimated it could use the land to tap into the groundwater, pump it to a canal, and deliver water for up to about 150,000 homes. But Phoenix never tapped the resource, and instead leased the land to a local Arizona farmer who grew less water-intensive crops.
The city assessed the aquifer in 2011 and found that the desert monsoon rains recharged the aquifer enough each year to allow the current homeowners in La Paz County to live there indefinitely, but that as a result of agricultural use, the water table was dropping up to 5 feet per year. Eventually, it would run out and homeowners would lose access to the vital water source.
In 2012, the city decided to sell the land atop this public water supply for $30 million to the North Carolina-based International Farming Corporation, which manages about $2.2 billion in agricultural investments. That same year, the Arizona State Retirement System invested $175 million with the firm.
Managers at the state retirement system knew that part of their investment was going directly into the land deal in La Paz County. The retirement system – as a key investor in the deal – was given the first right to make an offer on the farmland and the underlying water rights if International Farming Corporation decided to sell.
The state’s retirement system has about 600,000 members, such as teachers and other state and county government employees, and is one of the biggest investors in the La Paz County land deal orchestrated by International Farming Corporation. The state provided nearly half of the $430 million that the IFC-controlled fund aimed to raise for investments in farmland and associated water rights, according to state and federal records.
The state’s $175 million investment was commingled with money from other investors into a limited partnership fund controlled by IFC called U.S. Farming Realty Trust II. The fund then purchased farmland across the country, including the land in La Paz. Retirement money for the IFC-controlled fund also came from New York City teachers, union workers in California and Michigan, and even money from Carnegie Hall, the storied concert venue in New York City. All were invested directly or indirectly in the Arizona land deal, part of a growing trend by retirement funds and other institutional investors to fund large-scale farm deals that control water supplies at a time when scarcity of both food and water is expected to worsen.
In particular, investors are increasingly targeting water rights in arid regions of the United States. In a 2022 prospectus shared with potential investors, IFC wrote that the water rights associated with land deals are a key component of the value of any potential investment and that “water rights in Southern California and Arizona are expected to increase in value.”
International Farming Corporation executives also declined to be interviewed by Reveal. In a statement, they wrote that IFC complies with state water laws, uses advanced irrigation systems and is committed to the long-term success of the local agricultural communities that it’s part of.
The company listed the 14,000-acre property in La Paz County for sale in 2020 for $100 million dollars, more than three times what it paid for it less than a decade earlier. The state-funded investment property remains for sale today, according to IFC, although it declined to provide the current list price.
State Employees’ Money Used to Worsen Crisis
Almarai, a Saudi dairy company, owns a hay farm in La Paz County, Ariz. Credit: Débora Souza Silva
After Reveal broke the story in 2015 about the nearly 10,000 acre Saudi-owned farm growing and exporting hay in La Paz County, it became a central campaign issue in Arizona for both Republican and Democratic candidates, who criticized the farm and its use of the state’s scarce water. Now, through the Al Dahra farm, politicians find themselves invested in the same use of water they have campaigned against.
Attorney General Kris Mayes called the Saudi land deal “one of the greatest scandals in the history of Arizona,” in a recent interview with Reveal. She now expects Arizonans will be just as outraged that she and other public employees’ retirement funds are invested in a deal that further drains the state’s precious water.
“It just exacerbates an already terrible situation and shows again the abject failure of our government to protect our people and to protect our future,” Mayes said. “Our very survival as a state depends on our doing better when it comes to water.”
Mayes, who was elected in 2022 and took office this year, said she planned to look into the investments made by the state’s retirement fund.
Ironically, in making the investment in the land deal, the state of Arizona is capitalizing on its own lax water laws in rural communities, which allows landowners to pump unlimited amounts of groundwater.
Kathy Ferris is the former head of the state’s water department and helped craft the state’s 1980 Groundwater Management Act that protected aquifers in urban areas such as Phoenix, but not in rural areas such as La Paz County – a compromise between those who saw the need to regulate water across the entire state, and those who didn’t want any regulation. Now with the increased investment into pumping out Arizona’s rural water, Ferris said lawmakers need to update the state law to protect the rural aquifers.
“I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed in the lack of action,” Ferris said. “People will continue to come here and sink deep wells in these unregulated areas and do what they want with that groundwater because they can. Or until the groundwater runs out. And then they will leave.”
Michael Montgomery contributed reporting. This story was edited by Kate Howard and copy edited by Kim Freda.
This story originally appeared in The Breach on July 25, 2023. It is shared here with permission.
The Canadian government used an opaque U.S. military sales program to provide Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars worth of armoured vehicles, some of which were shipped out urgently after the Kingdom joined the war in Yemen, according to government documents and an arms sales database consulted by The Breach.
It’s the second-largest weapons export deal in Canadian history. But the Saudi clients have never been disclosed by the Canadian government. Nor has the fact been reported that the deal was struck at the behest of a U.S. plan to beef up the Saudi military.
In 2009, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, a Canadian crown corporation signed a deal on behalf of weapons manufacturer General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada to provide 724 light armoured vehicles (LAVs) to Saudi Arabia. Government documents show that, as late as 2018, deliveries of the $2.9-billion worth of LAVs were still being fulfilled.
The vehicles manufactured in Canada were of the same make later seen being used in Saudi Arabia’s operations in Yemen for years.
The documents provide more evidence that the Canadian government may have knowingly supplied armoured vehicles for use in Yemen.
The government documents, obtained through an access-to-information request, indicate that Canada was shipping new vehicles to the Saudi National Guard for at least three years during the war. The Saudi National Guard is considered to be the Kingdom’s best-equipped ground force and was directly engaged in the one-sided conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of Yemenis.
Eight-wheeled armoured combat vehicles, like those provided by Canada, are now frequently used in Saudi propaganda and even appear to be included in the logo of the National Guard.
The Breach can also reveal that Canadian companies signed subsequent contracts to maintain the vehicles until at least 2025, according to U.S. Department of Defense procurement records. These contracts involve repairing vehicles that appear to have been damaged during Saudi military operations in Yemen.
The 2009 deal’s details have been shrouded in mystery because of Canada’s lack of transparency about its arms dealings, including those that go through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, the program that supplied Saudi forces with the weapons.
For decades, the program has integrated Canadian weapons production into American sales abroad, ensuring that the industry caters to the strategic needs of U.S. foreign policy.
Massive weapons deal flies under the radar
The lack of attention paid to the massive 2009 deal contrasts with the spotlight on another weapons deal.
A $14-billion deal signed in 2014 for a newer model of armoured vehicles—the largest such deal in Canadian history—was the subject of considerable press coverage and criticism from human rights groups.
But Canada’s second-largest weapons deal, signed five years earlier, has flown under the radar.
Arranged by a crown corporation that markets Canadian weapons to foreign buyers, it was run through the FMS program, one of the main avenues the U.S. Department of Defense uses to supply weapons to allied and friendly regimes.
Saudi Arabia is one of the largest customers of the FMS program and one of the largest clients of weapons from the U.S.
Canada’s 2009 deal was tied to the U.S. government’s “modernization” of the Saudi Arabian National Guard.
In 2011, another contract for a further 82 LAVs was signed through the same program. A U.S. Department of Defense news release announcing that contract said the sale would “contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States” and bolster “political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.”
For decades, this office has attached several U.S. Army officials to the National Guard, funded by Saudi Arabia.
In internal memos dated Nov. 29, 2018, obtained by The Breach, Canadian officials lauded this arrangement’s benefit to Canada, calling it “one of the rare examples of [Canada-U.S.] partnership in foreign military sales involving the export of full systems from Canada via FMS…that date[s] back to the 1980s.”
A Breach investigation earlier this year revealed that the Canadian government believes its weapons sales to Saudi Arabia are crucial to maintaining the regime as an “integral and valued security partner,” listing access to oil, opportunities for Canadian companies and reduced need for Western military missions as its rationale.
Recently surfaced images showed Houthi forces operating a captured Canadian LAV in Yemen. The LAV appears to have had Saudi Coalition markings on the side of the vehicle painted over in black. Credit: Joshua Koontz
Saudis deploy the same vehicles in Yemen war
During the eight-year war, Saudi forces deployed the same model of LAV that Canada provided in combat operations across the northern regions of Yemen.
The Canadian LAVs seen operating in Yemen, the LAV-25 and its derivatives, are the older model of vehicle shipped under multiple contracts, with the largest being the 2009 FMS deal.
The LAV-25 model has been identified in images and videos posted from Yemen by weapons monitors and open-source researchers analyzing the proliferation of arms in the Yemeni conflict. Following an August 2019 Houthi attack on Saudi forces in Yemen’s northern Kitaf region, numerous LAV-25s were identified by experts in images of torched Saudi LAV columns.
Under the larger 2014 contract, Canada supplied a newer make of armoured vehicles that have not been seen operating in Yemen—the LAV-700—to the Saudi Royal Guard, a different unit in the Saudi military forces.
The new documents obtained by The Breach raise questions as to whether or not Canada knowingly supplied LAV-25s for use against Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
In July 2015, just four months after the war in Yemen began, then-minister of foreign affairs Rob Nicholson approved “urgent” export permits for an undisclosed number of “[LAVs] and weapon systems to Saudi Arabia,” according to a memo that was included in the documents obtained by The Breach.
Further documents reveal that in September 2017, while the war was ongoing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government also received “urgent” export applications from General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada for LAV exports to Saudi Arabia. These applications specifically referenced LAVs being sent to the Saudi National Guard through FMS, one of the documents obtained by The Breach shows.
Global Affairs Canada has flip-flopped on whether or not Canadian weapons have been used in the Yemen conflict. Most recently, the department made the blanket claim that “there are no confirmed reports of Canadian-made military equipment being deployed by Saudi Arabia on Yemeni territory.”
Due to the Saudi-led Coalition’s record of violating international humanitarian law during the conflict, Canada’s provision of LAVs to the Kingdom constitutes a breach of its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.
According to the monitoring website Lost Armour, which tracks major military equipment destroyed during conflict, at least 61 LAV-25s and its variants were seized or destroyed by Yemeni rebels during the course of the war.
Canadian-made LAV-25s have also been diverted to the Saudi’s puppet Yemeni government, as detailed in an investigation by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism in 2019. Credible allegations of diversion legally require action by Canadian officials, but Global Affairs Canada would not tell the reporters how much evidence it would need to actually open an investigation.
Based in London, Ont., General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada manufactures LAVs and other armoured vehicles. Credit: Google Maps
Canadians continue to service the Saudis
General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada has continued to maintain, test and repair the fleet of LAVs provided by Canada through the 2009 deal.
According to U.S. Department of Defense federal procurement records accessed by The Breach via the Tech Inquiry database, Canadian technicians have already been carrying out maintenance work on Saudi Arabia’s fleet of LAVs provided through the FMS program.
This work is being performed by General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada technicians in Saudi Arabia.
Their servicing contracts, set to run until at least 2025, appear to have involved maintaining the Saudi National Guard’s LAV fleet after damages were incurred during operations within Yemen.
Large arms deals, and particularly those conducted through the FMS program, typically come with long-term servicing contracts.
Stefano Trevisan, a Geneva-based attorney at law and international expert on the regulation of post-sale services on arms contracts, said these crucial deals have “escaped scrutiny.”
“Maintenance is as fundamental as oil to [the running] of a tank. It is the same essential contribution,” he told The Breach. “Such services create long-term structural dependency between Western supplying states and multinational corporations and some of the world’s most repressive regimes.”
Trevisan suggests that the nebulous and sometimes intangible nature of post-sale servicing leads to a lower profile of these arms deals.
“These deals can go on for ten years” with little visibility, said Trevisan, who likens the relationship between original manufacturer and recipient to an “invisible link.”
The Canadian manufacturer enjoys a monopoly on this service work because it has been described by the U.S. Army as the only outfit possessing “the knowledge and expertise necessary” to fulfill the requirements of these awards.
Canadian officials have only acknowledged these sustainment contracts internally.
In March 2021, according to the documents obtained by The Breach, Global Affairs Canada staffers requested export authorizations for “4 active contracts with the U.S. FMS for the supply of LAVs and related products and services to Saudi Arabia.”
The documents noted the contracts “date back to 2009,” and were for “ancillary products/services (e.g. spare parts)” connected to the Saudi LAV program.
Saudi Arabia has purchased billions of dollars of Canadian-made armoured vehicles like this LAV-700. Source: General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada
Canada’s ‘dependency’ on the US weapons export pipeline
With the exception of the 2014 contract to supply the Saudi Royal Guard with Canadian LAVs, all other Canadian LAV contracts to the government of Saudi Arabia have been undertaken through the FMS program, dating back to the first deliveries in 1991.
At any given time, there are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of active U.S. FMS contracts to more than 180 countries.
Jack Poulson, executive director of Tech Inquiry and a former senior data scientist at Google, told The Breach that Saudi Arabia is one of the most interesting examples of how the U.S. government aims to satisfy its foreign policy objectives by arming foreign states.
“As part of the U.S. government’s alignment with countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran, U.S. defense contractors sell Saudi Arabia about $10 billion per year of missile defense, Black Hawk helicopters, M1 Abrams tanks, etc.” Poulson told The Breach by email.
The FMS program also operates as both diplomatic carrot and stick: those who stay in the good graces of the U.S. foreign policy machine continue to benefit from the program, while those who deviate run the risk of losing access to advanced Western-produced weaponry.
The program is viewed by the Canadian government as a conduit to get Canadian military goods to the international market, openly extolled as providing new potential business lines for Canadian arms manufacturers.
The Canadian Commercial Corporation, the federal body which brokered the LAV deals, has said in its corporate plans that “Canadian exporters are able to leverage the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program [as a means to] sell into the U.S. DoD inventory where their goods can then be re-sold to third party countries.”
Ernie Regehr, co-founder of Project Ploughshares and author of Arms Canada: The Deadly Business of Military Exports, explained to The Breachvia email that Canada’s defence industry is “heavily dependent” on the U.S.
Regehr explained that Canada’s defence dependency dates back to the 1950s Defence Production Sharing Agreement. That agreement stipulated that Canada’s Department of National Defence would look to procure major weapons systems from American suppliers and, in turn, Canadian manufacturers would be granted preferential access in selling military goods to the American government.
“Allowing Canada access to the U.S. defence market was a small price for the U.S. to pay…to reinforce Canadian policy dependence on the U.S.,” Regehr said.
“Ever since, the dominant narrative has been that Canada can’t manage its own security, with substantial elements of the defence policy community relentlessly proposing further security integration with the U.S.”
Domestic arms production is frequently justified on the grounds that local producers can easily supply a nation’s armed forces in the event of armed conflict. However, most arms-exporting states stake a claim on one corner of the market by developing a production niche that soon needs foreign clients to stay profitable.
Canada is no exception, Regehr said.
“Aircraft engines, armoured vehicles and rifles are all examples of Canadian military production [that became] dependent on international sales in order to sustain the Canadian production facility,” he said, pointing out that all of these facilities are also Canadian-based subsidiaries of larger American-owned multinationals.
“[A]rmoured vehicles and automatic rifles were initially built for the Canadian Forces, but the Canadian market was too small to sustain the plants, and hence they developed a reliance on exports to foreign military forces.”
General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada was forced to look for foreign, non-American clients following the end of export contracts to the U.S. in the 1980s.
The client that ultimately saved the supplier was Saudi Arabia, with contract negotiations for its first major LAV procurement contract being finalized in 1990, and later delivered through the FMS program.
According to archival documents made available by the Canadian government, officials from the U.S. Army’s Office of the Program Manager first visited factories in London in 1981, spurring initial Saudi interest in vehicles from Canada.
Deliveries of LAVs to the Saudi Royal Guard under the $14-billion contract are likely moving into the final stages.
This contract will then, too, move into long-term maintenance, about which little information is available.
The terms of the contract have never been released to the public, despite the fact that the federal government signed the deal on behalf of the vehicle manufacturer.
This article is dedicated to Mohamed Abo-Elgheit, the award-winning reporter who conducted many important investigations for ARIJ, but who was taken far too soon after losing his battle with cancer late in 2022.
A Saudi-owned farm in the middle of the Arizona desert has attracted national attention and criticism since Reveal’s Nate Halverson and Ike Sriskandarajah first broke this story eight years ago. The farm is using massive amounts of water to grow hay and export it to Saudi Arabia in the midst of a water crisis in the American West.
Since then, megafarms have taken hold here. And the trend isn’t fueled just by foreign companies. Many people have no idea that their retirement funds are backing massive land deals that result in draining precious groundwater. Halverson uncovers that pension fund managers in Arizona knew they were investing in a local land deal, which resulted in draining down the aquifer of nearby communities. So even as local and state politicians have fought to stop these deals, their retirement fund has been fueling them.
And it’s not just happening in Arizona. Halverson takes us to Southern California, where retirement money also was invested in a megafarm deal. This time, the farm was tapping into the Colorado River to grow hay and ship it overseas. And it was happening as the federal and state governments have been trying to conserve river water.
Halverson’s investigation into water use in the West is just one slice of his reporting into a global scramble for food and water, which is featured in an upcoming documentary, “The Grab” by director Gabriela Cowperthwaite. “The Grab” will be coming soon to a theater or screen near you.
