radiofree.asia

Category: United Nations

  • Bloated Police Budgets Won’t Stop Sexual Violence

    On September 2, the United Nations voted unanimously to pass an international sexual assault survivors’ bill of rights, which many have touted as a feminist win. It’s true that survivors of sexual assault need protection, access to care, accountability, and justice. But this UN resolution isn’t likely to lead to those outcomes. The U.S.’ statement on the passage of this bill of rights clarifies what implementation would look like, including “the training of law enforcement and justice sector personnel in handling gender-based violence cases in a trauma-informed manner” as part of the “efforts to ensure that survivors of sexual and gender-based violence have access to survivor-centered justice.” As we already know, diverting funds to policing doesn’t keep survivors safe. It does just the opposite.

    The basis for the state’s line of thinking is an endorsement of carceral feminism. Diana Colavita, prison-industrial complex abolitionist and organizer with Survived and Punished NY, describes carceral feminism as “the belief that violence, including gender-based violence (like intimate partner violence and sexual assault), is an individual problem that can be solved on an individual basis in the criminal-punishment system, which carceral feminists believe is usually fair.” However, the carceral state is not feminist and cannot be reformed against its very nature into being feminist. This is because, at its core, the prison-industrial complex is inherently violent — particularly against the marginalized people its supporters purport that it protects. Colavita urges us to reject supposed interventions like so-called gender-responsive jails or trauma-informed police, which are just the state’s way of bastardizing concepts it refuses to truly understand. “Policing and incarceration are traumatic experiences,” says Colavita, and “no amount of trauma-informed training is going to make interactions with the police less traumatic.”

    This trauma is not a theoretical exercise. We have already seen, in practice, how these types of interventions are implemented. “I think to understand this UN resolution, you have to understand the U.S. federal legislation and subsequent state bills that the same people pushed for and that it is largely based around,” says Yves Tong Nguyen, a queer and disabled Vietnamese cultural worker and sex worker whose organizing home is with Survived and Punished NY and Red Canary Song. In 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed the Survivors’ Bill of Rights into law in the U.S. It’s easy to read a name like that and assume that its passage would be a good thing. But the rights that it codifies are not those that materially help survivors of sexual assault. Instead, Tong Nguyen says, its main purpose is “preserving rape kits and overhauling how sexual assaults are reported to encourage more survivors to report.” Because of this, police are often granted extra funding to their already bloated budgets to implement the overhauls in states that have passed comparable legislation. Most of the time, politicians and stakeholders consider giving police more resources a successful intervention, but even if you subscribe to the idea that law enforcement is meant to keep us safe, you’d see that they were doing a bad job.

    It’s not only that this reliance on policing and incarceration doesn’t help survivors of sexual violence; it actively harms them. Consider the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Originally considered at the same time as the 1994 Crime Bill, VAWA enshrined many alleged protections into law. Among those is the compulsory arrest of accused abusers, which has led to a rise in dual arrests — a situation which occurs when the abuser says their victim was also abusing them or was the real abuser all along. In that scenario, the police are compelled to arrest them both, forcing a survivor of trauma to be further traumatized by arrest and potential jail time. VAWA also guarantees that the collection of evidence for rape kits is free, but the medical care a survivor might need due to an assault is not. In fact, uninsured survivors are saddled with medical bills often soaring over $3,000 for their required care after an assault. What good does collecting a rape kit free of charge do when people who were harmed can’t access free HIV prophylaxis, Plan B, therapy, or treatment for physical injuries? What good does the preservation of rape kits do if those same kits are being used years later to charge survivors with unrelated crimes?

    The state is also one of the worst perpetrators of sexual violence. “Police routinely sexually harass, assault, and extort people with impunity whether on duty or off duty, and corrections officers are also sexually violent toward incarcerated people,” says Tong Nguyen. They explain that this is because state-sanctioned sexual violence has historically been a tool of colonialism and white supremacy, which American policing is deeply rooted in.

    Criminalizing people for survival — and thus subjecting them to state violence — is also common. Colavita describes “survival” as “anything from defending oneself from violence, abuse, or assault, being forced to engage in criminalized acts by their abuser, engaging in criminalized acts to escape or avoid violence, among other things.” When the survivor doesn’t fit the perfect victim archetype, and is Black, Indigenous, Latinx, disabled, queer or trans, sex working, undocumented, or drug-using, they are more likely to be punished for surviving violence. Pieper Lewis was 15 when she killed the 37-year-old man who she said had raped her multiple times. After spending years in juvenile detention, Lewis was made to pay $150,000 to her alleged rapist’s family and $4,000 to the state and was also placed on probation.

    Lewis is not an anomaly. Siobhan Dingwall, member of #StandWithTracy and Survived and Punished NY, explains that Tracy McCarter was wrongfully arrested in March 2020 when she survived a domestic violence assault during which her abuser died. “Despite evidence that she was defending her life and was providing her abuser with medical care after immediately calling the police,” says Dingwall, “she was arrested and charged with murder.” She was held on Rikers Island for nearly seven months and has since been released with a GPS monitor. E-carceration has made it impossible for Tracy to work, access mental health treatment, or visit her family. The DA’s office, after filing a motion to reduce her charges from murder to manslaughter, now claims it cannot drop the charges. But Dingwall says that “they have total discretion over the case, and legal experts have said the same.” The campaign and fundraiser for her freedom are urgent as she could face a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. The situation has already been traumatic for her. As McCarter said in an interview with The Nation, “The state becomes the worst abuser you could ever have. They lie. They gaslight you. They physically and emotionally traumatize you. They are so powerful that my ability to leave my abuser no longer exists.”

    Because of the shortcomings and overt violence of the carceral state, any bill of rights that relies on it to protect survivors will not succeed. “There is no world where there are police and prisons and all survivors are safe. It is impossible,” Tong Nguyen says. “Abuse and sexual violence are rooted in power, and the only way to upend that is to upend systems of power and oppression, which police and prisons are built upon.”

    Prism is an independent and nonprofit newsroom led by journalists of color. We report from the ground up and at the intersections of injustice.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Marshall Islands calls off talks after no US response on nuclear legacy plan

    By Giff Johnson, editor of the Marshall Islands Journal and RNZ Pacific correspondent

    On the eve of the US Pacific Islands Summit in Washington, a key ally in the region called off a scheduled negotiating session for a treaty Washington views as an essential hedge against China in the region.

    The Marshall Islands and the United States negotiators were scheduled for the third round of talks this weekend to renew some expiring provisions of a Compact of Free Association when leaders in Majuro called it off, saying the lack of response from Washington on the country’s US nuclear weapons testing legacy meant there was no reason to meet.

    Marshall Islands leaders have repeatedly said the continuing legacy of health, environmental and economic problems from 67 US nuclear tests from 1946-1958 must be satisfactorily addressed before they will agree to a new economic package with the US.

    Washington sees the Compact treaties with the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which stretch across an ocean area larger than the continental US, as key to countering the expansion of China in the region.

    “The unique security relationships established by the Compacts of Free Association have magnified the US power projection in the Indo-Pacific region, structured US defense planning and force posture, and contributed to essential defense capabilities,” said a new study released September 20 in Washington, DC by the United States Institute of Peace, “China’s Influence on the Freely Associated States of the Northern Pacific.”

    China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).

    The freely associated states stretch across an ocean area in the north Pacific that is larger than the continental United States and are seen by Washington as a key strategic asset.
    The freely associated states stretch across an ocean area in the north Pacific that is larger than the continental United States and are seen by Washington as a key strategic asset. Image: United States Institute of Peace/RNZ

    China’s blue water ambitions
    China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).

    “The value of the buffer created by US strategic denial over FAS territorial seas is poised to increase as China seeks to make good on its blue water navy ambitions and to deepen its security relationships with Pacific nations,” said the report whose primary authors were Admiral (Ret.) Philip Davidson, Brigadier-General (Ret.) and David Stilwell, former US Congressman from Guam Dr Robert Underwood.

    The Runit Dome was constructed on Marshall Islands Enewetak Atoll in 1979 to temporarily store radioactive waste produced from nuclear testing by the US military during the 1950s and 1960s.
    The Runit Dome was constructed on Marshall Islands Enewetak Atoll in 1979 to temporarily store radioactive waste produced from nuclear testing by the US military during the 1950s and 1960s. Image: RNZ

    “As Washington seeks to limit the scope of Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific in concert with regional partners, the US-FAS relationship functions as a key vehicle for reinforcing regional norms and democratic values.”

    US and Marshall Islands negotiators have both said they hope for a speedy conclusion to the talks as the existing 20-year funding package expires on September 30, 2023. But the nuclear test legacy is the line in the sand for the Marshall Islands.

    “The entire Compact Negotiation Committee agreed — don’t go,” said Parliament Speaker Kenneth Kedi, who represents Rongelap Atoll, which was contaminated with nuclear test fallout by the 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll and other weapons tests.

    “It is not prudent to spend over $100,000 for our delegation to travel to Washington with no written response to our proposal. We are negotiating in good faith. We submitted our proposal in writing.” But he said on Friday, “there has been no answer or counter proposal from the US.”

    US and Marshall Islands officials had been aiming to sign a “memorandum of understanding” at the summit as an indication of progress in the discussions, but that now appears off the table.

    US Pacific summit
    Marshall Islands President David Kabua, who is currently in the US following a speech to the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday last week, is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.

    Kabua, while affirming in his speech at the UN that the Marshall Islands has a “strong partnership” with the US, added: “It is vital that the legacy and contemporary challenges of nuclear testing be better addressed” (during negotiations on the Compact of Free Association). “The exposure of our people and land has created impacts that have lasted – and will last – for generations.”

    The Marshall Islands submitted a proposed nuclear settlement agreement to US negotiators during the second round of talks in July. The US has not responded, Kedi and other negotiating committee members said Friday in Majuro.

    In response to questions about the postponement of the planned negotiating session, the State Department released a brief statement through its embassy in Majuro.

    “With respect to the Compact Negotiations, which are ongoing, both sides continue to work diligently towards an agreement,” the statement said. “Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations, Ambassador Joe Yun, is expected to meet with President Kabua while he is in Washington to continue to advance the discussions.”

    While the Marshall Islands decision to cancel its negotiating group’s attendance at a scheduled session in Washington is a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to fast-track approval of the security and economic agreement for this strategic North Pacific area, island leaders continue to describe themselves as part of the “US family.”

    “The cancellation of the talks indicates the seriousness of this issue for the Marshall Islands,” said National Nuclear Commission Chairman Alson Kelen. “This is the best time for us to stand up for our rights.”

    ‘Fair and just’ nuclear settlement
    For decades, the Pacific Island Forum countries that will be represented at this week’s leader’s summit in Washington have stood behind the Marshall Islands in its quest for a fair and just nuclear settlement, said Kelen, who helped negotiators develop their plan submitted recently to the US government for addressing lingering problems of the 67 nuclear tests.

    “We live with the problem (from the nuclear tests),” said Kelen, a displaced Bikini Islander. “We know the big picture: bombs tested, people relocated from their islands, people exposed to nuclear fallout, and people studied. We can’t change that. What we can do now is work on the details for this today for the funding needed to mitigate the problems from the nuclear legacy.”

    Kedi said he was tired of US attempts to argue over legal issues from the original Compact of Free Association’s nuclear test settlement that was approved 40 years ago before the Marshall Islands was an independent nation.

    That agreement, which provided a now-exhausted $150 million nuclear compensation fund, was called “manifestly inadequate” by the country’s Nuclear Claims Tribunal, which over a two-decade period determined the value of claims to be over $3 billion.

    “Bottom line, the nuclear issue needs to be addressed,” Kedi said.

    “We need to come up with a dignified solution as family members. I’ve made it clear, once these key issues are addressed, we are ready to sign the Compact tomorrow.”

    President Kabua is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.

    Meanwhile, the members of his Compact negotiating team are in Majuro waiting for a response from the US government to their proposal to address the nuclear legacy.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Will the United Nations Finally Deliver Justice for Palestine?

    In his anticipated speech at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is expected to, once more, make a passionate plea for the recognition of Palestine as a full member.

    Abbas’ ‘landmark speech’ would not be the first time that the President of the Palestinian Authority has lobbied for such a status. In September 2011, the PA’s quest for full recognition was stymied by the Barack Obama Administration, forcing Palestinians to opt for the next best option, a ‘symbolic’ victory at the General Assembly the following year. In November 2012, UNGA Resolution 67/19 granted the State of Palestine a non-member observer status.

    In some ways, the Resolution proved to be, indeed, symbolic, as it altered nothing on the ground. To the contrary, the Israeli occupation has worsened since then, a convoluted system of apartheid deepened and, in the absence of any political horizon, Israel’s illegal Jewish settlements expanded like never before. Moreover, much of the occupied Palestinian West Bank is being actively annexed to Israel, a process that initiated a slow but systematic campaign of expulsion, which is felt from occupied East Jerusalem to Masafer Yatta in the South Hebron hills.

    Proponents of Abbas’ diplomacy, however, cite such facts as the admission of Palestine into over 100 international treaties, organizations, and conventions. The Palestinian strategy seems to be predicated on achieving full sovereignty status at the UN, so that Israel will then be recognized as an occupier, not merely of Palestinian ‘territories’ but of an actual state. Israel and its allies in Washington and other Western capitals understand this well, thus their constant mobilization against Palestinian efforts. Considering the dozens of times Washington has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to shield Israel, the use of veto is also likely, should Palestinians return to the UNSC with their full-membership application.

    Abbas’ international diplomacy, however, seems to lack a national component. The 87-year-old Palestinian leader is hardly popular with his own people. Among the reasons that resulted in his lack of support, aside from the endemic corruption, is the PA’s continued ‘security coordination’ with the very Israeli occupation that Abbas rages against in his annual UN speeches. These ‘coordinations’, which are generously funded by Washington, translate into the daily arrest of anti-occupation Palestinian activists and political dissidents. Even when the Donald Trump Administration decided to cut off all aid, including humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in 2018, the $60 million allocated to funding the PA’s security coordination with Israel remained untouched.

    Such a major contradiction has taught Palestinians to lower their expectations regarding their leader’s promises of full independence, albeit symbolic.

    But the contradictions did not start with Abbas and the PA, and certainly do not end with them. Palestine’s relationship with the world’s largest international institution is marred with contradictions.

    Though the Balfour Declaration of November 1917 remains the main historical frame of reference to the colonization of Palestine by the Zionist movement, United Nations Resolution 181 was equally, and to some extent, even more important.

    The Balfour Declaration’s significance stems from the fact that colonial Britain – which was later granted a ‘Mandate’ over Palestine by the League of Nations, the predecessor of today’s UN – has made the first officially written commitment to the Zionist movement to grant them Palestine.

    “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” the text read, in part. This quest, or ‘promise’, as known by many, would have culminated to nothing tangible, if it were not for the fact that the Zionist movement’s other colonial, western allies successfully managed to turn it into a reality.

    It took exactly 30 years for the Zionist quest to translate the pledge of Britain’s Foreign Secretary at the time, Arthur James Balfour, into a reality. UN Resolution 181 of November 1947 is the political basis upon which Israel existed. Though the current boundaries of the State of Israel by far exceed the space allocated to it by the UN’s partition plan, the Resolution nonetheless is often used to provide a legal foundation for Israel’s existence, while chastising the Arabs for refusing to accept what they rightly perceived then to be an unjust deal.

    Since then, the Palestinians continue to struggle in their relationship with the United Nations, a relationship that is governed by numerous contradictions.

    In 1947, the United Nations “was largely a club of European countries, English white-settler states and Latin American countries ruled by colonial Spanish-descendant elites,” former UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestine, Michael Lynk, wrote in a recent article regarding the partition of historic Palestine.

    Though the geographic and demographic makeup of the UN has vastly changed since then, real power continues to be concentrated in the hands of the former western colonial regimes which, aside from the US, include Britain and France. These three countries represent the majority of the UNSC permanent members. Their political, military and other forms of support for Israel remain as strong as ever. Until the power distribution at the UN reflects the true democratic wishes of the world’s population, Palestinians are deemed to remain at a disadvantage at the UNSC. Even Abbas’ fiery speeches will not alter this.

    In his memoir, referenced in Lynk’s article, former British diplomat, Brian Urquhart, ‘who helped launch the UN’, wrote that “the partition of Palestine was the first major decision of the fledgling United Nations, its first major crisis and, quite arguably, its first major misstep”.

    But will the UN’s current power paradigm allow it to finally correct this historic ‘misstep’ by providing Palestinians with the long-delayed justice and freedom? Not quite yet, but global geopolitical changes underway might present an opening which, if navigated correctly, could serve as a source of hope that there are alternatives to western bias, US vetoes and Israel’s historic intransigence.

    The post Will the United Nations Finally Deliver Justice for Palestine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 1 Person Dies of Hunger Every 4 Seconds

    An open letter signed by over 200 humanitarian groups calls on world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly to urgently take action on world hunger, citing that one person dies of hunger every four seconds. We speak with Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, one of the letter’s signatories, who just returned from Somaliland, where a famine may be declared as early as next month. Climate change, COVID and conflicts such as the war in Ukraine are largely to blame for rising hunger, she says, and “those who are the least responsible are suffering its worst impacts.”

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: One person is dying of hunger every four seconds. That’s the warning from a coalition of humanitarian groups, who say global hunger is spiraling out of control. Oxfam, Save the Children and other groups say 345 million people are now experiencing acute hunger — double the number from 2019. Humanitarian groups from 75 countries sent an open letter to world leaders and high-level diplomats gathering this week for the United Nations General Assembly here in New York Ciy. This is the first U.N. General Assembly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and a key meeting Tuesday focused on how the war is contributing to skyrocketing levels of hunger. This is the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

    SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: At the outset of 2022, conflicts, COVID-19, the effects of the climate crisis had already driven more than 190 million people into acute food insecurity. According to the World Food Programme, President Putin’s brutal war of aggression in Ukraine may add 70 million people on top of that — an already staggering number becoming even more staggering.

    AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the United Nations is warning of a looming famine in Somalia, where a searing drought fueled by the climate crisis has withered crops, killed livestock and left nearly 8 million people, or half of Somalia’s population, in need of humanitarian assistance. The U.N. says millions more are at risk of hunger and famine across East Africa, including Kenya and Ethiopia.

    For more on the world hunger emergency, we’re joined in New York by Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America. She recently returned from a trip to Somaliland, where a famine may be declared as early as October. Oxfam is one of the signatories to an open letter submitted by over 200 NGOs to world leaders this week, calling on them to take immediate action.

    Welcome to Democracy Now!, Abby Maxman. Can you start off by laying out the scope of the problem and what you’re calling for?

    ABBY MAXMAN: Thanks so much, Amy. Good to be with you.

    Having just returned from Somaliland last week, I’m able to connect what we’re seeing in the lived, real lives of people and how they’re affected, and connect them with those global numbers you already outlined. Three hundred and forty-five million people are facing extreme hunger as a result of that confluence of climate, COVID and conflict — and that number, in and of itself, 345 million people, more than the entire population of the United States, and this in the 21st century.

    Now, we know that we have been calling the alarm for several years. And we’ve had used our early-warning systems to trigger, to show — that have showed drought has continued to erode the lives and livelihoods of pastoralist and agropastoralist communities. Someone I saw in Somaliland, the stories were very similar. A woman named Safia, mother of eight, divorcée, who had stayed in her community as long as she could over the past several years, and ultimately went to a displaced persons camp near Burao called Durdur after she had lost 90% of her livestock. And hyenas were literally circling her family and her community as the livestock weakened. They had no choice but to move.

    What is so egregious about this is the cause of this is climate change. The increasing frequency and ferocity of intense climatic shocks, droughts, floods and heat waves, that we’re observing from Pakistan to Puerto Rico and, of course, across East Africa, are evidenced in all of the news. But we know it’s people like Safia and the 74-year-old farmer who said this is the worst drought he has ever seen in his lifetime, they are down to one meal a day. And they need and deserve our help.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Abby Maxman, you mentioned conflict, as well. To what degree has the Russian invasion of Ukraine affected the food supply, especially to the Global South? And also, to what degree, from your sense, is it the corporations taking advantage of situations? We see the secretary-general mentioning oil companies or energy companies exploiting the current crises. Your sense of these two things — the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and general super profits sought by some international companies?

    ABBY MAXMAN: Yeah, Juan, thanks for pointing those two things out. Yes, the war in Ukraine has exacerbated an already dire situation. The economic consequences of COVID and the climate crisis have been supercharged by the war in Ukraine. Prices have gone up exorbitantly. And people in Somaliland who I was talking to and seeing were spending more than 90% — 90% — of their income on food just to survive, and they were using coping strategies, down to one and two meals a day. That just is one anecdote of many about the impacts, direct and indirect, of the global crisis and conflict and its impact on those in East Africa and Somaliland.

    Your point on fossil fuel profit and others, it can’t be understated. It is extraordinary that as humanity faces this existential crisis of climate, that there is still more incentive by fossil fuel companies to destroy our planet and people than to save lives and to save the planet. Now, we know that the oil and gas industry has enjoyed staggering profits as they have wrought havoc on the planet. They’ve been amassing $2.8 billion a day. That’s more than a trillion dollars a year over the last 50 years. And just let me contrast that against the fact that 18 days of fossil companies’ profit could cover the entire U.N. humanitarian appeal for 2022, which has been woefully underfunded.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you also mentioned that you were in Somaliland recently. Particularly, could you talk about the situation in Africa? Obviously, there are major conflicts still raging there, especially in Ethiopia. Your sense of the impact of those regional conflicts in terms of hunger and poverty in Africa?

    ABBY MAXMAN: Yeah, Juan. Well, that confluence of those toxic three Cs — COVID, climate, conflict — are just supercharging the situation. And those who are least responsible are suffering its worst impacts. So, we need to make sure — we know that when humanitarian access is limited, that exacerbates people’s lives and livelihoods and the ability to get basics of their human rights — food, shelter, water, safety, protection. So, that is part of the cocktail, if you will, the toxic one, that people who — are experiencing, people like the countless pastoralists who are facing existential crisis to their lives, livelihoods, and that of their ancestors. They have rights and dignity that we need to protect and support in crisis. And the international community has a responsibility and a moral duty to act. And this week, in New York, around the U.N. General Assembly, we are calling on those in power, member states and policymakers, to take action now.

    We need to do three big things. Save lives — and there’s a number of ways of doing that: make sure we resource the humanitarian appeals and get the resources to people who need them, support local organizations, women-led organizations. Second, we need to build resilience. We cannot repeat this pattern of pulling resources to respond to crises that we know are coming. And we need to invest in both now. It’s an investment in the future. It’s an investment in protection. It’s an investment in promoting lives and livelihoods and dignity. And third, we need to invest in that future, beyond the resilience. We need to double climate adaptation funds. We need to make sure that special drawing rights are modified so that countries are relieved from debt and debt burden. And we need to fund nutrition and other fundamental issues that need to be supported at this time.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the growing inequality in the world and how this relates to the crisis of hunger around the world. According to a report just released by the investment bank Credit Suisse, the number of “ultra-high-net-worth” individuals, UHNW people, also increased exponentially last year to a record 218,200. Can you comment on this extraordinary rise in wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, while hundreds of millions are dying from hunger and hunger-related causes? And how must this be addressed?

    ABBY MAXMAN: It must be addressed. And I appreciate there’s an acronym now, UHNW, though that’s sad, a sad fact that that needs to be called out. This is a failure in our economic system, a system that is broken and serving a privileged few. It’s not — it’s immoral, it’s wrong, and there’s an opportunity to fix it. It’s not happening by chance. It’s happening intentionally by those in power and political capture and those who are wreaking profits to benefit themselves.

    There can be an opportunity to have a global wealth tax, to ensure that fossil fuel companies’ profits can be fairly taxed so that things like the U.N. humanitarian appeals, at a minimum, are funded. This is — nobody suffers. This is a race to the bottom versus a race to the top. And extreme inequality is harmful to all of society and all of humanity. It is very frustrating, it makes me very angry, to hear that, “Oh, there are no resources. That’s why we cannot save lives, build resilience and invest in the future.” That is not accurate. In the 21st century, there are enough resources to ensure the integrity and dignity of people’s lives and livelihoods and a more equal world. And there’s an opportunity to end extreme inequality by changing this failing economic system.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Abby Maxman, we thank you so much for being with us, president and CEO of Oxfam America, recently returned from a trip to Somaliland, where a famine may be declared as early as October.

    Next up, Adnan Syed has been freed after spending 23 years behind bars. His case gained international attention when it was the subject of the podcast Serial. We’ll speak with the first attorney to represent him. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Iran sends police to end protests as rights groups say six killed

    Police reportedly use teargas to disperse crowds as protests spread after death of Mahsa Amini

    Iran has sent police to the streets in a scramble to end protests that have spread to at least 15 cities, as rights groups and local media reported up to six people had been killed in crackdowns.

    There were reports of internet blackouts in parts of the country in an apparent attempt to quell growing anger. The telecommunications minister, Issa Zarepour, was quoted by the official Irna news agency as saying there had been some “temporary restrictions in some places and at some hours”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Fiji Times: Valuing democracy amid shrinking global civic spaces

    EDITORIAL: By Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley

    Democracy! We may differ in how we understand and value democracy. But what is the essence of democracy?

    On this special day, when we are reminded about democracy, perhaps it is apt that we should hear out the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.

    This day — September 15 — is listed by the United Nations as the International Day of Democracy.

    The Fiji Times
    THE FIJI TIMES

    Whatever your take is on this special day, whatever it means to you, and whether there is value in it, perhaps we need the space and time to understand it. Perhaps we may then place appropriate value on democracy, understand it, and appreciate what it stands for.

    The UN states this day “provides an opportunity to review the state of democracy in the world”.

    In his speech for the 15th anniversary of the day, Guterres said: “Yet across the world, democracy is backsliding. Civic space is shrinking.

    “Distrust and disinformation are growing. And polarisation is undermining democratic institutions.”

    Raising the alarm
    Now, he said, was the time to raise the alarm.

    He said it was time to reaffirm that democracy, development, and human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. He said it was time to stand up for the democratic principles of equality, inclusion, and solidarity. He spoke about the media and its place in society.

    “This year, we focus on a cornerstone of democratic societies – free, independent, and pluralistic media,” he said.

    “Attempts to silence journalists are growing more brazen by the day – from verbal assault to online surveillance and legal harassment – especially against women journalists.

    “Media workers face censorship, detention, physical violence, and even killings – often with impunity.

    “Such dark paths inevitably lead to instability, injustice and worse.

    “Without a free press, democracy cannot survive. Without freedom of expression, there is no freedom.

    Joining forces for freedom
    “On Democracy Day and every day, let us join forces to secure freedom and protect the rights of all people, everywhere.”

    In the face of all that, we remind ourselves of our role as a newspaper company.

    We are sure about where we want to be, and the role we can play to move our beautiful country, Fiji, forward. We are comforted by the fact that thousands of people place great value on democracy and on information.

    We know we can be a forum where issues that are relevant to our multiracial mix of people can be raised, discussed and debated.

    We appreciate the fact that there must be value placed on the dissemination of information that is fair, credible and balanced.

    That would mean placing on a very high pedestal the importance of news that will inform, educate, and create awareness of issues pertinent to our various communities, and ultimately nurture or trigger important discussions, irrespective of where it is you sit on the political divide.

    Democracy! How important is it in the greater scheme of things? Do we understand it? How much value do we place on it? Today is a special day!

    This Fiji Times editorial under the title “Value on democracy” was published on 15 September 2022. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Why Is the UN Welcoming Philippine Dictator’s Son to Power?

    Fifty years to the day since a dictator declared martial law in the Philippines, the international community is poised to welcome his son into power with open arms. The United Nations has invited newly inaugurated Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to speak at the UN General Assembly on September 20. The invitation coincides with the 50th anniversary of the declaration of martial law in the Philippines by his father, Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

    September 21, 1972, marked the beginning of a 14-year period of corruption, tyranny and state violence that left over 70,000 Filipinos jailed, 34,000 tortured and 3,240 murdered. It also left the Marcos family $10 billion richer.

    Despite an outstanding $353 million contempt order related to human rights abuses committed under his family’s previous rule and a presidential campaign marred by claims of electoral fraud, violence and misinformation, Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos Jr. will be speaking to the international community on issues of inequality, poverty and armed conflict — issues he has no right to speak about. The UN General Assembly must not be swayed by the Marcos family’s attempts to obfuscate their crimes against the Filipino people. Anything less is a gross hypocrisy from a body that supposedly “promotes the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”

    State violence against the Filipino people is not a problem of the distant past. Americans may be familiar with former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s (2016-2022) bloody “war on drugs.” In a thinly veiled effort to crack down on dissent, state forces and their allies targeted activists and critics, resulting in as many as 30,000 extrajudicial killings of labor leaders, land defenders, and the poor and vulnerable. Now, the former president’s daughter, Sara Duterte, is Marcos Jr.’s vice president. This is not a coincidence. The Marcos-Duterte alliance is the work of a decades-long project by the Marcos dynasty and its cronies to restore itself to power. Inviting Marcos Jr. to the UN only further disregards the killings and indignities suffered under both Marcos Sr. and former President Duterte.

    Make no mistake: Marcos Jr.’s regime is overseeing a continuation of the practices of his predecessors. His regime lends its full support to practices widely condemned by international human rights groups. These include the violent and anti-democratic tactics of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict and the Anti-Terror Law, which in tandem have resulted in the intimidation and arrest of any opposition, including sitting senators, journalists and Indigenous school teachers. In 2020, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights itself reported “systematic human rights violations, including killings and arbitrary detention, persistent impunity and the vilification of dissent.” Now, Marcos Jr. doubles down on these same cruel, repressive methods. Human rights atrocities in the Philippines will worsen as the government continues to dodge accountability.

    The United States and the international community will remain complicit with the Marcos-Duterte regime so long as the world continues to legitimize the tyranny of these political dynasties and the U.S. government continues to fuel the mechanisms of terror with over $550 million in military aid and $2 billion in arms sales. But this cycle of impunity need not continue. Last year, Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pennsylvania) introduced the Philippine Human Rights Act (PHRA) in an effort to suspend security assistance to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police until the human rights situation improves.

    Marcos Jr.’s speech at the United Nations will represent a cruel hypocrisy to the many Filipinos who have suffered under the Marcos and Duterte regimes. The international community should not welcome Marcos Jr. into power. Congress must pass the PHRA, the International Criminal Court must proceed with its inquiry into extrajudicial killings during the Duterte administration, and the United Nations must commit to investigating the human rights abuses of the new Marcos regime. It’s high time the global community take substantial steps towards restitution for the Filipino people and begin to hold the Marcoses and Dutertes accountable for their crimes.

    The Northeast Coalition to Advance Genuine Democracy in the Philippines will protest and march from the Philippine Consulate (556 5th Avenue) to the United Nations on Tuesday, September 20, at 12 pm.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Venezuela intelligence agencies guilty of crimes against humanity – UN report

    United Nations mission says President Nicolás Maduro and others ordered ‘grave crimes’ including torture to stifle opposition

    Venezuela’s intelligence agencies are committing crimes against humanity as part of a plan orchestrated at the highest level of government to repress dissent, UN experts have concluded.

    A team tasked with investigating alleged violations in Venezuela said it had uncovered how members of intelligence services implemented orders by President Nicolás Maduro and others in a scheme to stifle opposition.

    Continue reading…

  • West weighs calling for China Uyghur abuses inquiry at UN

    Battle over influence at Human Rights Council, with Beijing warning of ‘politicisation of human rights’

    Western powers are weighing the risk of a potential defeat if they table a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council calling for an independent commission to investigate alleged human rights abuses by China in Xinjiang.

    The issue is a litmus case for Chinese influence at the UN, as well as the willingness of the UN to endorse a worldview that protects individual rights from authoritarian states.

    Continue reading…

  • New High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk – the man for an impossible job?

    On 23 June 2022 Marc Limon, Executive Director of the Universal Rights Group posted a Blog: “Time to ask again: is being the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights an impossible job?”

    In February 2018, he published a blog on the early departure of the previous High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. The blog responded to David Petrasek’s article in OpenGlobaRights, entitled ‘Another one bites the dust’ (8 February 2018).

    Limon argues that the High Commissioner position is, in fact, several jobs rolled into one. The mandate of the High Commissioner and his/her Office comprises inter alia:

    • Monitoring and speaking out about human rights violations around the world – ‘preventing the continuation of human rights violations throughout the world,’ (OP4f of GA resolution 48/141 of 7 January 1994).
    • Acting as the Secretariat to the ‘competent bodies of the United Nations system in the field of human rights and [making] recommendations to them,’ (OP4b of GA res. 48/141).
    • Providing capacity building, advisory services and technical assistance, at the request of the State concerned, ‘with a view to supporting actions and programs in the field of human rights,’ (OP4d, GA res. 48/141).
    • Engaging in human rights diplomacy (‘dialogue’) with governments and ‘enhanc[ing] international cooperation,’ in order to promote the implementation of international human rights obligations and commitments, and respect for human rights, (OP4g, OP5h, GA res. 48/141).
    • Coordinating human rights mainstreaming across the UN system, (OP4i, GA res. 48/141).
    • Making recommendations and driving efforts to ‘rationalize, adapt, strengthen and streamline the United Nations machinery in the field of human rights with a view to improving its efficiency and effectiveness,’ (OP4j, GA res. 48/141).

    It is clear that, when held in the hands of a single human being, these different parts of the High Commissioner’s overall mandate operate in tension and are, perhaps, even mutually incompatible…

    Is it possible for one person to wear all these hats at the same time? Can a single person publicly criticise States in one breath, then in the next reach out to them to forge agreement on reform of the UN human rights system or to provide human rights technical assistance?

    Petrasek has made no secret of his belief (apparently shared by the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres) that Zeid over-prioritised human rights monitoring and public advocacy, to the detriment of almost all other parts of his mandate. Yet for many other civil society representatives in Geneva and for many Western diplomats, this singlemindedness (together with Zeid’s natural eloquence) made the former High Commissioner something of a cult hero and the perfect High Commissioner,

    Fast forward four and a half years and Zeid replacement as High Commissioner, the former President of Chile Michelle Bachelet, has also fallen on her sword – yet for precisely the opposite reasons as Zeid.

    Bachelet was handpicked by Guterres to mark a clear break from Zeid by pursuing a more holistic and balanced approach to the role and mandate of the High Commissioner. In addition to public advocacy Bachelet tried to emphasise human rights diplomacy, international cooperation, support for the international human rights machinery, a focus on emerging thematic human rights concerns (e.g., climate change, the right to a healthy environment, prevention, digital technology), and the on-the-ground delivery of technical assistance and capacity-building support.

    See: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/06/09/disappointment-with-un-high-commissioners-visit-to-xinjiang-boils-over/ and

    https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/09/01/finally-the-long-awaited-un-report-on-china/

    In truth, the world needs a High Commissioner Zeid and a High Commissioner Bachelet. The question is: is that possible? Maybe other solutions might be considered? Might, perhaps, the High Commissioner focus on public advocacy, and the Deputy High Commissioner on the more cooperation-orientated aspects of the mandate? Maybe different Deputies could be appointed for each of the main ‘baskets’ of the High Commissioner’s overall mandate? Or maybe the parts of the mandate related to the human rights machinery could be ‘spun off’ – for example, into a new position of secretary-general of the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, and of the Treaty Bodies?

    These are difficult and sensitive questions, and yet it is surely important that they be asked and considered now rather than later. Perhaps today, as the Secretary-General ponders the appointment of the next High Commissioner, is an opportune moment to do so?

    On September 7, 2022, the UN announced Secretary-General António Guterres’ decision to appoint Volker Türk, an Austrian national, to replace Michelle Bachelet.

    Reactions were swift, most of them expressing the need for action, e.g. “The new UN high commissioner for human rights should neither seek nor expect a honeymoon period from UN member states,” said Tirana Hassan, interim executive director of Human Rights Watch on 8 September “What’s needed by the millions of people around the world whose rights are being violated every day is an advocate in their corner who will take on abusive governments large and small without fear and without hesitation.”

    Yoni Ish-Hurwitz, Executive Director of Human Rights Likeminded Office was invited by the Universal Human Rights Group on 12 September, 2022, to contribute a Blog `’Who is Volker Türk?’:

    Opinions have already begun forming about Volker Türk in the short time since the announcement of his appointment last week as the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, in the absence of a public competition, there was little opportunity to learn about Türk. He is also not well-known outside of the UN (and had few followers on twitter until last week). Therefore, in the absence of personal familiarity, it may be useful to focus on his biography, body of work and statements. This would lead to a better understanding of why he was selected for this role. [DISCLAIMER; I happen to know him personally from my days in UNHCR. He has always struck me as an honest and dedicated person with a pronounced interest in the human rights side of refugee work.]

    Central to Türk’s biography is his long professional relationship with the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. They worked together at UNHCR when Guterres led the agency as High Commissioner for Refugees. When Guterres became UN Secretary-General, Türk joined him in New York, to serve as Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination in the Executive Office. Guterres promoted him in January, to the rank of Under-Secretary-General for Policy, also in the Executive Office, perhaps setting him up to take the role of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

    Having a close confidant as the High Commissioner may be especially important for the Secretary-General at present, considering the significant current political challenges he faces. This is especially the case in the aftermath of the release of the long-awaited report on Xinjiang by the former High Commissioner, Michelle Bachelet. She spared Türk the need to continue holding this hot potato. However, China won’t let Türk off the hook, and will likely exert pressure on him, as it has done with Bachelet, to carefully weigh his words and the way he manages his Office’s work on China. In the meantime, Chen Xu, the Permanent Representative of China in Geneva, announced that ‘the Office closed the door of cooperation by releasing the so-called assessment.’ This means that this is one political crisis that will not end with Bachelet’s departure.

    One key question is whether the new High Commissioner will prioritise engagement over speaking truth to power. Bachelet was criticised of doing just that following her recent statements on China, until she released her report at the 11th hour on the job. .. On the face of it, it may appear that Guterres selected a diplomat, rather than an advocate. Türk is a UN career officer through and through, and as such he is in a better position to offer ‘good offices,’ as the UN does, compared to any former Head of State that could have taken the High Commissioner’s post. Among his predecessors were two presidents, two supreme court judges, one foreign minister and one permanent representative to the UN headquarters. However, every day before walking into his new office, the face that Türk will see first is that of his predecessor Sérgio Vieira de Mello, who also spent most of his career in UNHCR. He was commemorated in a bust at the entrance to Palais Wilson, four years after his death in a bombing at UN headquarters in Iraq.

    Türk worked in the UN refugee agency for over 30 years, including in the field. Coming from within the UN system is an asset for navigating organisational politics, fostering collaboration with other parts of the UN, enhancing the contribution of OHCHR to all relevant UN fora, and understanding how to engage with Member States to address the situation of the most vulnerable people. His intimate understanding of the UN system is manifested in two major initiatives he stewarded – the Secretary-General’s flagship report, Our Common Agenda, as well as the Secretary-General’s Call to Action for Human Rights. This may not be the place to analyse their successes or shortcomings, but it can be said that they were both well-received. Our Common Agenda offered a vision for mobilising the UN to address global challenges. OHCHR needs a manager with this kind of foresight to grasp the organisation’s structure, programmes and needs. The second initiative, the Call to Action for Human Rights, identified areas for action to advance human rights. As High Commissioner, perhaps Türk will be in a better position to support the implementation of the Call to Action.

    This work demonstrates deep engagement on human rights. His legal background, holding a doctorate in international law, will support his role as an advocate. He can substantively articulate concerns and uphold norms based in international human rights law, humanitarian law and refugee law. He certainly appears as an advocate on twitter (@volker_turk). His tweets show his compassion, as he mostly addresses human rights concerns, with people at the centre.

    Civil society was concerned about the selection process. Phil Lynch, Executive Director of the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), said: ‘The lack of transparency and meaningful consultation with independent civil society in the selection process meant that the Secretary-General missed a key opportunity to build the legitimacy and authority of the next High Commissioner.’ The appointment of the Secretary-General’s confidant may have reaffirmed worries that the High Commissioner would prioritise diplomacy and engagement over advocacy for human rights. However, Türk appears to have the appropriate biography and a heart in the right place to fulfil both of the High Commissioner’s roles as an advocate and a diplomat. Hopefully he will be attentive to civil society and rights-holders, in line with his advice during his time as Assistant High Commissioner for Protection at UNHCR: ‘Listen to what refugees are telling us.’

    After being appointed at the last minute as the next UN high commissioner for human rights, Volker Turk is not expected to be at the 51st session of the UN Human Rights Council, held from 12 September to 7 October. When he does, Turk will have to grapple among other challenges with his predecessor’s report on Xinjiang, but for the moment deputy high commissioner Nada Al Nashif is in charge of the UN rights office and will have to answer any questions about China that might come up during the first days of debate..

    https://www.universal-rights.org/uncategorized/time-to-ask-again-is-being-the-un-high-commissioner-for-human-rights-an-impossible-job/

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/08/un-new-rights-chief-should-speak-out-all-victims

    Who is Volker Türk?

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Anger as Nauru-backed company gets go ahead to mine on seafloor

    RNZ Pacific

    Deep sea mining could begin in the Pacific as early as this month, after regulators decided to allow The Metals Company to start mining the seafloor.

    The International Seabed Authority (ISA) has granted permission to Nauru Oceans Resources, a subsidiary of The Metals Company, to begin exploratory mining in the Clarion Clipperton Zone between Hawai’i and Mexico.

    According to the Financial Post, about 3600 tonnes of polymetallic nodules are expected to be collected during the trial beginning later this month with an expected conclusion in the fourth quarter of 2022.

    It comes as French Polynesia recently voted for a draft opinion for a temporary ban on seabed mining projects.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa is calling on world leaders to step in, and put a temporary ban on deep sea mining to protect the ocean.

    Its seabed mining campaigner James Hita said Pacific peoples have been pushed aside for decades and excluded from decision-making processes in their own territories.

    He said deep sea mining was yet another example of colonial forces exploiting Pacific land and seas, without regard to people’s way of life, food sources and spiritual connection to the ocean.

    New destructive industry
    Hita said the move signals the beginning of a new and destructive extractive industry that would place profit before people and biodiversity, threatening ocean health and people’s way of life.

    “Deep sea mining is now right upon our doorstep and is a threat to each and every one of us. The ocean is home to over 90 percent of life on earth and is one of our greatest allies in the fight against climate change,” he said.

    “The ISA was set up by the United Nations with the purpose of regulating the international seabed, with a mandate to protect it. Instead they are now enabling mining of the critically important international seafloor.

    “The Legal and Technical Commission, that approved this mining pilot, meets entirely behind closed doors, allowing no room for civil society to hold them to account. This mechanism is simply unacceptable.”

    “Right now people across the Pacific are taking a stand, calling for a halt to deep sea mining. Civil society, environmentalists and a growing alliance of Pacific nations are urging government leaders to stand on the right side of history and stop deep sea mining in its tracks. We must stand in solidarity with our Pacific neighbours and put a lid on this destructive industry to preserve ocean health for future generations,” said Hita.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Bahraini imprisoned for reciting a prayer was arbitrarily deprived of liberty

    The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) published an Opinion on its website formed on 15 July 2022 concerning AbdulNabi AbdulHasan Ebrhaim Khalil, a 50-year-old Bahraini citizen from Hamad Town who recites prayers during religious occasions as a Maddah at Ma’tam AlSammakeen. He was sentenced to a year in prison for reciting Ziyarat Ashura, a common prayer recited by Shia all over the world during Muharram. He was released after seven months in detention on alternative sentencing. The Working Group affirmed that AbdulNabi’s detention had been arbitrary due to clear violations of due process and fair trial rights as well as its connection to his right to freedom of religion, rendering his detention a discriminatory act based on his exercise of this right. As a result, the Working Group has referred his case to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief.

    Through its UN Complaint Program, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) regularly receives information from Bahraini individuals and employs their accounts as key evidence in submitted complaints to the United Nations Special Procedures Offices. As such, the documentation collected by ADHRB was the source of information upon which the WGAD based its Opinion on AbdulNabi’s case.

    In its Opinion No. 77/2021, adopted on 19 November 2021, the Working Group identified various categories of its method of work under which AbdulNabi’s deprivation of liberty fell and in which  international laws and standards were violated. As such, the Working Group has requested the Government of Bahrain to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of AbdulNabi without delay to bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working Group set out the appropriate actions in this case as follows:

    “Release unconditionally Mr. AbdulNabi AbdulHasan Ebrahim Khalil unconditionally and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law… [and] ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. AbdulNabi AbdulHasan Ebrahim Khalil and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.”

    ADHRB welcomes this Opinion by the WGAD and urges the Bahraini authorities to provide AbdulNabi with adequate reparations and compensation for his arbitrary detention and the violations he suffered, in addition to holding the perpetrators of those violations accountable.

    The WGAD is one of the Special Procedures offices of the UN Human Rights Council. As part of its regular procedures, the Working Group sends allegation letters to governments concerning credible cases of arbitrary detention. The Working Group may also render Opinions on whether an individual or group’s detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law. The WGAD reviews cases under five categories of arbitrary detention: when it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (Category I); when the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights to equal protection of the law, freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and expression, and freedom of assembly, among others (Category II); when violations of the right to a fair trial are so severe that the detention is rendered arbitrary (Category III); prolonged administrative custody for refugees and asylum seekers (Category IV); and when the detention is discriminatory on the basis of birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or other opinions, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other status (Category V).

    In its Opinion, the Working Group found that AbdulNabi, who was released approximately a year ago to serve a 5-month alternative sentence under electronic monitoring, had suffered a range of human rights violations throughout his 7-month long detention. First, AbdulNabi was unlawfully arrested without a warrant; second, he was not brought promptly before a judge nor granted access to his lawyer; third, he was tried and convicted in relation to the exercise of his right to freedom of religion by reciting a prayer. Despite AbdulNabi’s release, the Working Group found the allegations in his case extremely serious, warranting the delivery of an Opinion.

    The Working Group determined that AbdulNabi’s warrantless arrest on 3 September 2020 violates articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9(1) of the Covenant as well as principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Furthermore, AbdulNabi was detained for 67 days even though norms of international law dictate that pre-trial detention should be ordered for the shortest time possible, and charges were not brought against him until 10 November 2020. He was not brought before a judge within the 48 hour window stipulated in article 9(3) of the ICCPR. AbdulNabi was held in incommunicado detention, whereby he was denied contact with his family and lawyer during pre-trial detention and authorities failed to disclose his location.

    Since the Bahraini government did not to provide an adequate response to the raised allegations, instead relying on generic statements which did not address AbdulNabi’s warrantless arrest and prolonged detention, the Working Group found that AbdulNabi was denied his right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court, a violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9(4) of the ICCPR. Moreover, the Working Group concluded that the Government failed to establish a legal basis for AbdulNabi’s detention, rendering his detention arbitrary under Category I.

    The Working Group considered that the events leading up to AbdulNabi’s detention had been directly linked to the exercise of his right to religious freedom, which is guaranteed in article 18 of the universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the ICCPR. While the government cited national legislation, namely Articles 92 (1,2), 309, 310 (2)) of the Penal Code which criminalizes insulting symbols subject to glorification of the people of religion, an act it convicted AbdulNabi of committing during the sermon, the Working Group contested that the Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment no. 34, had expressed concern regarding laws pertaining to disrespect of authority, flags, symbols, and others, indicating that laws should not establish more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned. The Working Group thus found that AbdulNabi’s detention falls under Category II deprivation of liberty.

    The Working Group emphasized that no trial should have taken place against AbdulNabi. Despite this, AbdulNabi was tried and convicted, and his due process rights were violated. He was denied access to legal counsel, a right enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 14(1) and 3(b) and (d) of the ICCPR. In its response, the government did not deny the fact that AbdulNabi was denied communication with his lawyer until after his trial had begun. This, along with the government preventing AbdulNabi from communicating with the outside world in general, renders the violations of fair trial rights suffered of such gravity that his detention constitutes a Category III deprivation of liberty.

    Finally, the Working Group found that AbdulNabi was arbitrarily detained under Category V. His interrogation, coercion into signing a pledge, and subsequent deprivation of liberty are discriminatory based on his peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of religion, a violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2(1) and 26 of the ICCPR. The government did not provide any information refuting this allegation.

    In its concluding remarks, the Working Group noted that AbdulNabi was the only prisoner of conscience among the 126 prisoners released under alternative sentencing on 3 April 2021,  and pointing out that he was prevented from reciting Ziyarat Ashura or participating in religious assemblies and forced to inform authorities of his whereabouts until October 2021. The Working Group also highlighted the continued suspension of AbdulNabi’s salary, which has taken a toll on his family’s financial situation. The Working Group called on the government to take the necessary measures to reverse or redress these prejudices which were suffered by AbdulNabi. 

    ADHRB echoes the requests made by the Working Group for a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding AbdulNabi’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty so that appropriate measures can be taken against those responsible for the violation of his rights, in addition to AbdulNabi receiving proper reparations for his arbitrary detention, alternative sentencing, and the suspension of his salary.

    The post Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Bahraini imprisoned for reciting a prayer was arbitrarily deprived of liberty appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • Renewed TPLF Terror War Against the Ethiopian People

    After a fragile ceasefire lasting just five months, the TPLF (Tigray People’s Liberation Front) have once again initiated violent conflict with federal forces in Northern Ethiopia.

    They started the war in November 2020, were forced to retreat just over a year later, but not content with the level of human suffering resulting from their initial barbarism, they are, it seems, determined to kill and kill again; to rape and beat their Ethiopian brethren; to once more destroy property, burn farmland, slaughter livestock, sending fear through communities, deepening the pain of a nation in their frenzied quest for power.

    This latest offensive was launched on 24 August, violating the humanitarian truce agreed with the Ethiopian government, and shattering the temporary peace. A Government statement relayed that, “Ignoring all of the peace alternatives presented by the government, the terrorist group TPLF…. continued its recent provocations and launched an attack this morning at 5 am (0200 GMT)”

    The TPLF used the months of peace, not to enter unto constructive dialogue with the government, to address the needs of people in Tigray impacted by the war and beg for forgiveness, but to actively re-arm and rebuild its forces. The Crisis Group relate that they have “solid evidence” of at least 10 Antonov planes making deliveries (of arms it is assumed) “to two airports in Tigray,” almost certainly from Sudan. One such aircraft, en route from Sudan and loaded with weapons, was recently shot down by the Ethiopian air force.

    The government has known about these aerial shipments for some time, but failed to clamp down on them. This lack of decisive action, particularly in relation to law and order issues has been a feature of the Abiy premiership, and is something that needs to change.

    Whilst TPLF thugs lit the fuse of renewed conflict in Tigray’s southern border, other misguided fighters, many little more than children, raided a World Food Program (WFP) warehouse in Mekelle (capital of Tigray region). “12 full fuel tankers with 570,000 litres of fuel” were taken, and UN staff detained, reported, Stephane Dujarric, chief spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. “These fuel stocks were to be used solely for humanitarian purposes, for the distribution of food, fertilizer and other emergency relief items. This loss of fuel will impact humanitarian operations supporting communities in all of northern Ethiopia.”

    Stealing from the UN to enable war is nothing new for the TPLF; From July-September 2021 the WFP state that, “445 contracted non-WFP trucks entered Tigray, but only 38 ….returned,” – 407 were stolen by the TPLF. The lack of vehicles the agency said, was “the primary impediment to ramping up the humanitarian response” within Tigray. The inability of UN agencies to deliver humanitarian aid is of no concern whatsoever to the TPLF leadership, who care not a jot for the people of Tigray, and even less for other ethnic groups throughout Ethiopia.

    Alongside the declaration of a humanitarian truce, the March 24 agreement initiated by the Government, allowed for unfettered humanitarian access to Tigray, and created a platform for peace talks. But the TPLF do not want peace, have never wanted peace and have no intention of working for it. They failed to engage with the Main Peace Committee – established to “peacefully resolve the conflict in the northern part of the country”, or the National Dialogue Commission, set up by the government on 29 December 2021, to “facilitate “inclusive dialogue on national issues for the creation of national consensus and establishment of common grounds.” From the beginning of the conflict the government has repeatedly looked for a peaceful resolution, but the TPLF have erected obstacle after excuse after condition to scupper any progress; for its part the government has consistently said it will talk to TPLF representatives anytime, “without precondition, at any venue.”

    This accommodating approach, however, is wasted on the TPLF: their aim is clear, to fracture Ethiopia, inject discord, hopefully overthrow the government (with western nations’ support) – the first government to be democratically elected by the way – and regain power. They will fail totally; they are hated and despised throughout the country (including within Tigray) and by Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopia everywhere, and with every Ethiopian that they kill, rape and abuse that hate deepens a little further.

    Western support: arms and credibility

    The TPLF have been a malignant force in Ethiopia for decades. They dominated the previous EPRDF government (a coalition in name only) for 27 years (1991-2018), stealing election after election. Ruling through fear, enflaming division, agitating ethnic disagreements, violently crushing human rights and committing state terrorism in various parts of Ethiopia. Throughout their time in office and since their overthrow Western powers, to the bewilderment of many, have consistently supported them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given their addiction to regional meddling, the main sponsor of TPLF terror is the US government. Successive administrations, together with the UK, and to a lesser degree the European Union, have backed the TPLF, empowering them financially, politically, and throughout their war on the Ethiopian State, it is widely believed, militarily.

    With western political support and lasting TPLF influence in Washington, London, New York and Geneva, has come media collusion. CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, New York Times etc, all have been guilty of mis/dis-information; biased or just poorly researched stories ranging from outright lies to nauseating bothsidesism as with Voice of America (VOA) reporting of the recent theft of WFP fuel by TPLF fighters, witnessed by UN staff. VOA state that Tigrayan forces are condemned for “allegedly stealing” the fuel: allegedly!

    The extent to which western politicians were, and given the recent attacks, appear to remain, involved in the TPLF’s terror war was revealed by a video that was leaked in November 2021. The footage shows a Zoom meeting between Berhane Gebre-Christos, referred to as “a “chief representative of the TPLF,” and top US, UK and European Union diplomats with long-standing connections to Ethiopia, including US Ambassador to Somalia Donald Yamamoto. The group reportedly celebrated the TPLF’s advance on Addis Ababa (which never actually transpired) and discussed how the TPLF could form a post-Abiy government.

    It is geopolitics at its most ugly and menacing; these ex-colonial/imperialist political powers have no interest in seeing Ethiopians or indeed anyone in Sub-Saharan Africa prosper and are still trying to install puppet regimes wherever possible. As long as the TPLF continue to receive support from ‘foreign powers’ the terrorists will continue to wage war on the Ethiopian people. The ‘international community’, which equates in this case primarily to the US, needs to stop feeding the dogs of war and start compelling the TPLF, a cancer within the nation and the wider region, to engage meaningfully in peace talks with the government.

    The post Renewed TPLF Terror War Against the Ethiopian People first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Lawyer criticises UN report’s failure to call Uyghur oppression ‘genocide’

    Sir Geoffrey Nice QC says outgoing human rights chief’s report on China makes it easier for international community to do nothing

    The UN’s failure to mention the word genocide in its report alleging serious human rights violations by China against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province is an “astonishing” lapse, according to a leading British human rights lawyer.

    The 45-page report from the outgoing UN human rights commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, landed minutes before her term ended on Wednesday, outlining allegations of torture, including forced medical procedures, as well as sexual violence against Uyghur Muslims.

    Continue reading…

  • Five key points from the UN report on Xinjiang human rights abuses

    Damning report cites human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims in north-west Chinese province

    China has committed “serious human rights violations” against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province that could amount to crimes against humanity, the outgoing UN human rights commissioner has said in a long-awaited and damning report.

    Continue reading…

  • Rights groups call for inquiries into Uyghur abuses in China after damning UN report

    Governments urged to launch formal investigations after UN findings on treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang

    Governments around the world should establish formal independent investigations into human rights abuses in Xinjiang, victims and human rights groups have said, after the 11th-hour release of a long-awaited UN report.

    The report by the UN office of the high commissioner for human rights (OHCHR) was published minutes before Michelle Bachelet ended her tenure.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • US Interests and Israeli Crimes

    Many people were surprised and outraged when US President Biden recently fist bumped Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. After all, as a candidate, Biden pledged to make the Saudi kingdom a pariah since the Crown Prince had been directly linked to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

    In contrast, consider the relative lack of outrage to Biden’s statement after the latest criminal Israeli attack on Gaza that began on August 5th. This air bombardment by Israel, a nuclear power with one of the world’s strongest militaries and the occupier of Palestinian land, was against a mostly defenseless people. During this attack, 49 Palestinians, including 17 children, were killed and 360 Palestinians including 151 children were wounded. In contrast, reports suggest that 13 Israelis had minor injuries. Biden said: “My support for Israel’s security is long-standing and unwavering – including its right to defend itself against attacks. …  I commend Prime Minister Yair Lapid and his government’s steady leadership throughout the crisis.”

    Biden’s comment ignores reality. Israel wasn’t attacked, but it had attacked Gaza. Palestinians responded to the attack by Israel. In addition, note the large number of Palestinian children who were killed or wounded. This Israeli war crime clearly did not spare Palestinian civilians. This is the leadership that Biden and many other politicians commended. Wow — this says a lot! Even worse, Biden doesn’t seem to think Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Israel’s state terrorism.

    Besides the immeasurable human cost of the Israeli attack, the damage Israel did to Palestinian infrastructure and housing makes life in Gaza ever more difficult. Just as in numerous previous horrific and devastating Israeli attacks, there is no talk of Israel paying reparations for the widespread devastation it inflicted on Gaza. Rebuilding is difficult given that Israel has maintained, with US and Egyptian support, an illegal siege on Gaza since 2007.

    The US corporate dominated media plays a role in enabling these Israeli crimes by its biased coverage. For example, it downplays the fact that Israel is an apartheid state. The US media also fails to consistently point out that Israel is occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. There are well over 600,000 Israeli settlers living illegally on Palestinian land in the West Bank. The media doesn’t stress that Israel routinely violates international law, particularly the 1949 Geneva Conventions on occupation, with impunity. The media also seldom mentions that the US has cast over 40 vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions regarding problematic Israeli behavior. These vetoes or threats of vetoes by the US enable Israel to escape accountability.

    In addition, given how the US praises Ukrainians who resist the Russian military in Ukraine, it is appalling to see the US commending Israel even though it has been occupying Palestinian land for decades. Ukrainians who resist Russian forces are touted as heroes in the US corporate media whereas Palestinians who legitimately resist cruel and illegal Israeli policies are called terrorists. As this latest attack shows, Palestinians who are simply trying to live their lives are killed with impunity for the killers due to the US preventing any sanctions against Israel.

    Unfortunately, this US hypocrisy regarding Israel is of long standing. For example, before the Partition Plan for Palestine was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1947, Loy Henderson, director of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, warned: “The UNSCOP [U.N. Special Committee on Palestine] Majority Plan is not only unworkable; if adopted, it would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future.”

    Henderson added: “The proposals contained in the UNSCOP plan … are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [U.N.] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based.

    “These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race against persons outside of Palestine.”

    This US hypocrisy strongly undercuts the idea that the US cares about the rule of law. For example, the courageous South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Naledi Pandor, recently made this point in a press conference with the US Secretary of State. She said: “With respect to the role that multilateral bodies such as the United Nations should play, we believe that all principles that are germane to the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law must be upheld for all countries, not just some Just as much as the people of Ukraine deserve their territory and freedom, the people of Palestine deserve their territory and freedom. And we should be equally concerned at what is happening to the people of Palestine as we are with what is happening to the people of Ukraine.”

    Blatant US hypocrisy regarding its own war crimes as well as its hypocrisy regarding Israel are complicating its relations with non-aligned nations. The US desire to remain a leader is running into problems as more non-aligned nations don’t see the militaristic, economically predatory and hypocritical US as worthy of being their leader.

    • First published in Boulder Daily Camera

    The post US Interests and Israeli Crimes first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • The life and times of an Unesco convention in Timor-Leste

    In late 2011 I travelled for the first time to Timor-Leste. My role was as “facilitator” for the Unesco 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage, and as Unesco wanted the government of Timor-Leste to ratify that convention, my task was to introduce the convention, its mechanisms and benefits, mainly to officials.

    For countries in the Asia-Pacific region, intangible cultural heritage (ICH) was a novel term. Although cultural specialists, anthropologists and artists had some familiarity with the term, it was foreign to ministries and departments of culture and arts in Asian countries and, more importantly, quite alien to communities of people who practised what is more popularly known as “traditional knowledge” (TK). Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and traditional cultural expression (TCE) are other terms often used.

    What is intangible cultural heritage? The website for the Convention has an answer: “Traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants, such as oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts.”

    With the 2011 training workshop, what was called the “capacity building” for ICH in Timor-Leste had begun. It was generally directed by the Unesco office in Jakarta, Indonesia, and hosted and organised by the State Secretariat for Arts and Culture in Timor-Leste. Between November 2011 and December 2014, we conducted several such training workshops, followed by two more in 2015 and 2016.

    We had large groups—between 40 and 60 people—attending the workshops. Because of the demographics of Timor-Leste, the largest age group was between 20 and 30. However the practitioners (or knowledge-bearers) were all older.

    I had observed in one of my reports to Unesco (September 2016) following a workshop: “As is usual amongst participants’ groups bearing this age diversity, the older practitioners have little patience with aspects of policy and administrative paraphernalia while the younger set, educated more ‘formally’ compared with their parents and grand-parents, observe structures more readily.”

    While the early workshops were attended more by officials than community participants, by 2014 we had significantly more students from the two universities, from several leading civil society organisations, and groups of practitioners as participants.

    What was made plain at every workshop was participants’ appreciation for being able to meet one another, with all costs covered, to talk about the different kinds of knowledge systems they represented. My own view of the use of and the potential of the ICH Convention is biased towards environment, ecology and the natural world and the knowledge systems that concern it. What I saw in Timor-Leste signalled quite clearly that there are an abundance of knowledge systems that involve the environment, and which the Convention could treat as ICH.

    During the 2011-13 period the potential of this connection seemed promising, but it proved to be very difficult indeed to fulfil. A major barrier was the format and method of the training engagements prescribed by Unesco headquarters in Paris, which relied on instructional material that had been produced for the Secretariat of the Convention by foreign experts.

    Nor were format and method the only orthodoxy. The training sessions for Timor-Leste were three or four days long, about half the duration demanded by Unesco headquarters for this work. Officials in Timor-Leste had explained to Unesco that representatives of knowledge-bearing communities could not stay away from their normal work and duties for more than three or four days. It was a reasonable request, and my background working with environment and agriculture ministries in India supported this view. We  simply could not ask people to sit through classroom sessions without compensating for their forfeited daily income.

    However, I found agencies of inter-governmental systems (like the UN) and large international NGOs and donor organisations do not typically agree to compensation for participation in workshops or training programmes. They tend to take the view that this amounts to paying people for participating. They also tend to place a value on the training given which is, when complete, considered to be a community asset given “free of cost”.

    I found this puzzling, because if an agency or organisation delivering training (of whatever kind) did not value the time and skills of participants, how could it expect its advice, particularly about income and livelihood, to be taken seriously by those participants?

    Training on any inter-governmental treaty, convention or programme follows a similar pattern, which governments adopt as readily as NGOs or foundations. Training is generally thought to be the method best suited to delivering learning about concepts, mechanisms, terminology and definitions and structured work on the ground. But conversely, training or facilitation does not provide space and occasion to the bearers of knowledge traditions to expand on their own conceptions of “traditional knowledge”, its symbols and values.

    Yet, thanks to patient explanations provided by older participants, and also thanks to discussions I had with officials of the State Secretariat for Arts and Culture (SSAC) and of the ministries of tourism and education, I was able to gain some understanding about the daily, seasonal and annual patterns of life of the Timorese.

    One more barrier was language. According to the Unesco 2003 Convention, language is only a vehicle for ICH. This means that a dialect whose speakers are dwindling, and whose vocabulary falls more into disuse with every passing year, cannot be given protection by listing it under the convention.

    What was described in this process was a part—and sometimes only a small part—of life in Timor-Leste under circumstances that were not only changing quite quickly, but changing in ways that most could not readily grasp. A question raised several times during every single training workshop was: what is the future for what we are being trained in, if we cannot use it to generate income?

    Unfortunately this was not a question that the ICH Convention was even partially prepared for at the time—nor is it today. By late 2012 I was engaged similarly in Sri Lanka and Cambodia. In both these countries I began to see parallels with Timor-Leste. I began to form the view that our task had a structure whose rigidity was out of place with the subject matter.

    Drawing upon my experience of working with the central government of India, through development programmes under the ministries of agriculture and of environment, I opined to Unesco (through my reports) and to the SSAC, that conventional “development” would impose more than merely economic costs on society. Officials of the SSAC and other departments in Timor-Leste that had an interest in our work generally agreed to some degree, or had considered the subject carefully.

    Through lengthier expositions (almost always by an elder) during workshops and at other gatherings, participants described Timor-Leste as having been, according to written and oral histories, inhabited by agricultural societies. Surely this was foundation enough for a Timorese conception of “development” strongly rooted in its culture. By late 2016, we had gathered sufficient material to support that proposition, thanks to discussions with environmental group Haburas, Timor Aid, Many Hands International, Alola Foundation, Timor Furak, La’o Hamutuk, Hametin Agrikultura Sustentável Timor and the senior staff of the SSAC.

    What they described can be summarised as a cultural approach to “development”; a variety of programmes, which seemed to borrow partly from foreign sources, but which were more acceptable to the communities of Timor-Leste than the complex, expensive schemes being planned for the country by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and several development aid projects sponsored by other countries’ overseas development agencies.

    I favoured the overall cultural approach to development simply because the official Unesco ICH engagement in Timor-Leste could only be very limited. The concepts and methods left behind by our work would either be absorbed into what the SSAC (or any new organisation given the ICH/TK/ILK mandate) did in future or into what any of the larger Timorese NGOs took on as socio-economic programmes. We could not, and should not, control of the future of terminology and methods.

    Yet change, too little of it for the better, was more visible with every visit. In 2016 I thought it necessary to underline once again the changes we were witnessing in Timor-Leste and their effects on traditional knowledge. In September that year I advised Unesco about the rising rate of urbanisation and the impact of this trend on transmission of knowledge and of ICH practice.

    I also emphasised that according to the official data, more than 40% of the population was below the poverty line and therefore any programme we presented about the safeguarding of traditional knowledge must contribute to shrinking that percentage.

    Until the third quarter of 2016, Unesco was pressing the Government of Timor-Leste to ratify the convention. It did so in October that year. Ratification did not, however, change the reality. There remained no “comprehensive and effective legislation” (as Unesco put it) for the protection and management of ICH, traditional knowledge systems and traditional cultural expressions.

    Yet what I had observed and experienced between late 2011 and late 2016 indicated that regardless of formal ratification or specific legislation, there was no reason why identification, documentation and safeguarding of ICH/TK/ILK could not take place.

    Aided by the SSAC, participants at our workshops had identified, described and sketched safeguards for the ICH (the convention calls these “elements”) that they had selected. These were: Aihan tradicional Akar (the craft of weaving traditional bamboo screens for use in homes), Naran Ekipa Bua Malus (the ingredients, objects, values and rites associated with betel-nut), Tebe Lilin (oral history stories), Koto Tisi (the processing of a bean variety usually considered famine food), Uma Lisan Soe Mamulak (ancestral houses as the cultural fibre of the community), Homan (a basketry skill, the produce of which is used for a number of common and ritual functions), Sanan Rai (a pottery tradition, which SSAC was also promoting to encourage the use of earthenware products such as water jugs), Mina Nuu (the knowledge of coconut trees and the coconut, which yields many different products very useful to rural households), and Tais (the handwoven textile used for decoration and to create traditional clothing).

    Considering each of these as a system of knowledge—an associated object, an understanding of the raw material from which it is derived, it’s symbolism, meaning and uses—appealed greatly to our participants. The workshop seemed to give them the latitude with which to express at length the folklore, stories, personal accounts and personal experiences relating to each “element”. Our method, happily modified from the ground up for Timor-Leste, was promising.

    Extensive re-conceptualising was necessary, as the Convention’s definition of an ICH “element” was constricting. The problem lay in what was required satisfy the administrative demands of the Convention’s mechanisms. Participants—whether from community, government, universities or NGOs—were expected to comply with the descriptive format used by the convention’s governing organs to assess the inclusion of an “element” on either of the two lists of the Convention. Member states must describe their ICH “elements” within a word limit, guided with examples. These examples were written by academics or cultural specialists for a very narrow audience, which is considered to have an “international” view.

    Related

    Conservation of Timor-Leste’s world-class marine ecology is not being taken seriously

    Teeming with the greatest fish species biodiversity on the planet, these seas are under threat from large and small scale illegal fishing compounded by lax law enforcement.

    Jake Lasi 03 September, 2020

    As an ICH facilitator it was difficult to convince community participants, and especially village elders and tradition bearers, that complying with these unfamiliar formats and protocols may help them win recognition. “Why can’t we use what we told you?” they asked, and of course there ought to have been no reason why not.

    By late 2016, the gulf between what was needed by traditional knowledge practitioners in Timor-Leste and what was being supplied by Unesco was, in my view, too great to bridge. I found I could no longer defend the methods I used, even with modifications, as counting for training that was relevant and durable in local conditions.

    The years 2011-16 saw a great deal of activity in Timor-Leste in the sectors of environment, economy, natural resources management, income and livelihoods, infrastructure, education, water and sanitation, public health, youth. Timor-Leste was awash in new concepts and methodologies: our effort was only one of many.

    In 2013 the World Bank had commenced a “Road for Cultural Heritage Project”, identifying cultural heritage sites along the Dili, Aileu and Ainaro, along with their local significance, in order to develop sustainable tourism. This was an opportunity for community voices to contribute to the discourse on “local significance” and “sustainable tourism”.

    Similarly, in late 2013 the Asian Development Bank (ADB) completed future climate modelling for the Pacific region, which predicted that Timor-Leste’s GDP would drop by up to 10% in two generations because of climate change effects on rain-fed agriculture and fish catches. Here too, the Convention’s safeguarding methods, if applied to traditional knowledge on fishing practices and food cultivation, could be presented as ways to mitigate the risk that climate change brings. Unfortunately, neither of the development banks was engaged with the potential for traditional knowledge to be better recognised.

    The broad subject of traditional knowledge was relevant not only to the Unesco Culture section but also to other UN agencies, the World Bank, ADB, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), to organisations conducting training on climate change and those using texts and material from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO, which also has an active TK unit).

    This barrage of training and techniques left little, if any, space for Timorese to explore, at their own pace and according to their own forms of inquiry, ontologies that had survived in Timor-Leste about concepts which seemed to be taken as universally understood: heritage, development, sustainability, environment, ecology, conservation, cultural industry. Without such a space, needed then and perhaps more so today, Timor-Leste is destined to remain a reluctant consumer of foreign concepts, its traditional knowledge systems becoming “cases” for a “development” model in whose making the Timorese have not at all participated.

    The post The life and times of an Unesco convention in Timor-Leste appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • Know Better, Do Better: 2022 U.S. CERD Review

    By Jennifer Wakefield, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy at Northeastern University School of Law Last week, I had the privilege of traveling to Geneva, Switzerland for the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)’s review of…

    This post was originally published on Human Rights at Home Blog.

  • Reflections on the U.S. CERD Review, 2022

    By Martha F. Davis Traveling to Geneva, Switzerland, is beyond imagination for many American citizens. Yet for those who were able to be last week during the UN’s periodic review of U.S. compliance with its obligations under the Convention on…

    This post was originally published on Human Rights at Home Blog.

  • August – October 2022 Deadlines: Calls for Inputs by UN Human Rights Mechanisms

    The following calls for inputs have been issued by UN Human Rights Mechanisms with deadlines in August-October 2022 and law professors whose practice, research, and/or scholarship touches on these topics may be interested in submission: Independent Expert on the effects…

    This post was originally published on Human Rights at Home Blog.

  • Punishing Whistleblowers at the United Nations

    The United Nations prides itself on exposing, monitoring and noting the travails and vicissitudes to be found on this troubled planet.  It also prides itself on being the premier international institution that protects, or at the very least keeps an eye out for, the principles of the Charter that underpin its existence.  But as with all bodies with mighty aspirations but skewed power, the grime of reality often supplies a different, less impressive picture.

    Every organisation replicates its own rationale for existence, including mechanisms to cope with problems of its own making.  Such problems are rarely resolved: they are inherent in the nature of the organisation itself, essential to its functioning.  The United Nations, like many labyrinthine orders, has proven to be impenetrable, bureaucratic and dispiriting.  For years, it has been dealing with a range of conduct issues regarding UN personnel and, for want of a better term, the workplace.  Over that time, it has also sought to keep such misbehaviour, and in some cases blatant criminality, concealed, preferring to focus the ire upon those who spill the beans.

    Consulting the range of measures supposedly in place does little to encourage optimism.  In February 2016, we are told of Jane Holl Lute’s appointment as Special Coordinator on improving the UN responds to “sexual exploitation and abuse” which, on first reading, looks like an encouragement rather than a counter.  “Her role is to work across the United Nations systems’ many offices, departments and agencies to strengthen the UN response to sexual exploitation and abuse, wherever it may occur, from headquarters locations to the most remote field bases.”

    The remit is a cool, procedural one, a case of making sure that the stars of administration align with the requisite paperwork.  Lute’s task was to “align approaches, enhance coordination, cooperation and coherence system-wide through the development of aligned mechanisms and procedures, standardized protocols and tools.”  This is the sort of language that murders the cause and obscures the victim, which is precisely the sort of rationale that thrives in New York and those “remote bases”.

    But there is more.  Jane Connors comes shooting up the ranks as the appointed Victims’ Rights Advocate at UN Headquarters in August 2017.  Her role: to “ensure that the United Nations provides tangible and sustained assistance to the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse.”

    These are but a few examples, and have done nothing to stem, let alone stop, the rot.  On June 21 this year, the BBC added its contribution with a documentary about whistleblowers within the UN and the malicious treatment they have received at the hands of their superiors.  The test and merit of any organisation lies in how it treats those who expose defects and faults.  The brave and the responsible will take such exposures to heart, punish those responsible for breaches and apply the appropriate treatments.  Most, however, prefer to punish the well-meaning discloser while sparing the perpetrator.

    The revelations in the documentary, informed by a number of whistleblowers, are disturbingly extensive.  There is James Wasserstrom, who claims to have found evidence that the construction of a power station in Kosovo came from a tendering process compromised by generous kickbacks.  There is John O’Brien, who brought attention to the fact that an environmental programme based in Russia had been tarnished by money-laundering.

    In all these instances, organisational vindictiveness duly kicked in.  Wasserstrom, despite being promised the protections one would expect for a whistleblower, had his name leaked to his accusers.  O’Brien was accused of misbehaving in viewing nude photographs on his phone at work, the whistleblower as deviant.

    All this pales before the crimes committed by the Blue Helmet peacekeepers in such countries as the Central African Republic and Haiti.  Locals became prey to sexual assault, vulnerable quarry to be pursued rather than protected.  Former assistant secretary-general Tony Banbury was particularly concerned about the welfare of a rape victim in CAR. He was left disgusted and despondent.  “I needed the organisation to prioritise that girl.  They prioritise the perpetrators.”

    Those reporting sexual misconduct by highly placed UN personnel became rich targets for retribution.  Their careers were prematurely frustrated or ended.  Purna Sen, who was appointed spokeswoman on harassment, assault and discrimination in 2018, could only lament to BBC Newsnight that there was “a real tension within an organisation which not only upholds and advocates for human rights, but is actually the birthplace of most of these human rights – yet hasn’t learned to bring them home to the people who work for that organisation.”

    The Government Accountability Project, Transparency International and the Whistleblowing International Network responded to the revelations in the documentary by repeating their own concerns.  “We again urge UN Secretary General António Guterres to immediately order an independent inquiry and use his power to remedy the harm caused to UN staff who have already suffered for trying to do the right thing.”  The three groups insist that, “Serious structural reforms are needed to bring the UN systems in line with international consensus for best practice principles and to ensure UN staff feel safe to speak up when they witness harmful conduct at work.”

    The core problem for such a body as the UN, like others wielding enormous and iniquitous power, is suggested by the proliferation of policies without action or spirit.  They function like economists in the service of a bankrupt state, with guardians and investigators merely serving as advisors who never solve the problem.

    One such individual is spokesman for the UN Secretary General himself, Stéphane Dujarric, who seems to genuinely believe the piffle he is spouting.  “We continue to do whatever we can to support victims and are focused on improving the systems and ensuring that people feel safe to report abuse.”

    For those who seek change, punishment and banishment await.  With that state of affairs, everyone, from leader to cleaner, will be assured that this will remain the ugliest of family affairs, ensuring that all whistleblowing will never perform the role it should.

    The post Punishing Whistleblowers at the United Nations first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The International Decade For People Of African Descent

    The International Decade for People of African Descent (IDPAD) is coming to an end on December 31, 2024; there are 2.5 years left to bring it out of the invisibility in which those who decided to organize it have kept it. This invisibility can be seen by consulting the website of the decade . Each entry occupies barely a page in the 7.5 years of its existence.

    The way it has been treated is a symptom of a structural racism that refuses to tell its name; for this reason, it has not been able to go beyond the boundaries imposed by the international community, some of whose members have shown real opposition to it, on the pretext that their state is free of racism, even if they concede some racial discrimination, but that is where it ends.

    The post The International Decade For People Of African Descent appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Bab al Hawa Deception

    On July 12,  the UN Security Council extended the authorization for humanitarian aid to cross through Bab al Hawa on the Turkey-Syria border for another six months.  The US and allies had wanted a one-year extension, but Russia vetoed it.  The US, UK and France abstained on the six-month approval, while all others supported it.

    There is much misinformation and deceit about the Bab al Hawa crossing in Idlib province, Syria. First, Western media rarely mention that after the aid crosses the border, it is effectively controlled by Syria’s version of Al Qaeda, Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS). Second, they fail to explain that HTS hoards much of the aid for its fighters. When Aleppo was liberated by the Syrian Army, reporters found large stashes of medicines and food in their headquarters that were set aside for the use of the militia. Third, HTS makes millions of dollars by taxing the aid that it distributes to the rest of the population under its control.

    In May 2018, HTS was added to the US State Department’s list as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). HTS’s 15000 fighters are able to manipulate the numbers by including their names and the names of their accompanying families as civilians, thus receiving huge amounts of aid from UN agencies such as the World Food Program.  It is rarely mentioned that thousands of these civilians are not Syrian. They are Uyghurs and Turkmen supporters of Al Qaeda, from Turkey, China and elsewhere.

    The Bab al Hawa crossing is also an entry point for weapons and sectarian fighters smuggled in with the copious aid. This is not new. In 2014, legendary journalist Serena Shim reported how she witnessed fighters and weapons entering Syria using World Food Organization trucks at Bab al Hawa. She was killed in Turkey two days after her report.

    It is claimed over 4 million persons are in Idlib. That is a huge exaggeration. Before the conflict began in 2011 there were 1.5 million. When sectarian militants seized control, many civilians fled for Aleppo or Latakia. Even including fighters coming from other areas, the population is much LESS than before the conflict. The number of civilians in Idlib is grossly inflated for political and economic reasons. 

    The media also fail to mention that the aid across Bab al Hawa serves only the Al Qaeda-controlled area (the northern green section of the map) and not the rest of Syria. While western states send massive amounts of aid to this minority, the vast majority of Syrians suffer with little aid. Moreover, they are under the extreme US “Caesar” sanctions designed by the US to crush the economy by outlawing the Syrian Central Bank, make it impossible for Syrians to rebuild infrastructure, and punish Syrians and anyone who would trade or assist them.

    Russian, Chinese and other representatives on the UN Security Council have pointed out that aid to Syria should be going through the UN recognized government in Damascus. Aid to civilians in Idlib should be distributed via the Syrian Red Crescent or a comparable neutral organization.

    Providing aid through Bab al Hawa via hostile Turkey to an officially designated terrorist organization should be prohibited.  It is a clear violation of Syrian sovereignty. In December 2022, when the authorization again comes to a UN Security Council vote, the crossing may finally be shut down. At that point, the legitimate aid to civilians in Idlib province can be delivered from within Syria as it should be.

    The post The Bab al Hawa Deception first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The War “Diplomat”: How Borrell, the West Lost the “Global Battle of Narratives”

    In a blog entry, reflecting on the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Bali, Indonesia on July 7-8, the High Representative of the European Union, Josep Borrell, seems to have accepted the painful truth that the West is losing what he termed “the global battle of narratives”.

    “The global battle of narratives is in full swing and, for now, we are not winning,” Borrell admitted. The solution: “As the EU, we have to engage further to refute Russian lies and war propaganda,” the EU’s top diplomat added.

    Borrell’s piece is a testimony to the very erroneous logic that led to the so-called ‘battle of narratives’ to be lost in the first place.

    Borrell starts by reassuring his readers that, despite the fact that many countries in the Global South refuse to join the West’s sanctions on Russia, “everybody agrees”, though in “abstract terms”, on the “need for multilateralism and defending principles such as territorial sovereignty”.

    The immediate impression that such a statement gives is that the West is the global vanguard of multilateralism and territorial sovereignty. The opposite is true. The US-western military interventions in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and many other regions around the world have largely taken place without international consent and without any regard for the sovereignty of nations. In the case of the NATO war on Libya, a massively destructive military campaign was initiated based on the intentional misinterpretation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, which called for the use of “all means necessary to protect civilians”.

    Borrell, like other western diplomats, conveniently omits the West’s repeated – and ongoing – interventions in the affairs of other nations, while painting the Russian-Ukraine war as the starkest example of “blatant violations of international law, contravening the basic tenets of the UN Charter and endangering the global economic recovery” .

    Would Borrell employ such strong language to depict the numerous ongoing war crimes in parts of the world involving European countries or their allies? For example, France’s despicable war record in Mali? Or, even more obvious, the 75-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestine?

    When addressing “food and energy security”, Borrell lamented that many in the G20 have bought into the “propaganda and lies coming from the Kremlin” regarding the actual cause of the food crisis. He concluded that it is not the EU but “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine that is dramatically aggravating the food crisis.”

    Again, Borrell was selective with his logic. While naturally, a war between two countries that contribute a large share of the world’s basic food supplies will detrimentally impact food security, Borrell made no mention that the thousands of sanctions imposed by the West on Moscow have disrupted the supply chain of many critical products, raw material and basic food items.

    When the West imposed those sanctions, it only thought of its national interests, erroneously centered around defeating Russia. Neither the people of Sri Lanka, Somalia, Lebanon, nor, frankly, Ukraine were relevant factors in the West’s decision.

    Borrell, whose job as a diplomat suggests that he should be investing in diplomacy to resolve conflicts, has repeatedly called for widening the scope of war on Russia, insisting that the war can only be “won on the battlefield”. Such statements were made with western interests in mind, despite the obvious devastating consequences that Borrell’s battlefield would have on the rest of the world.

    Still, Borrell had the audacity to chastise G20 members for behaving in ways that seemed, to him, focused solely on their national interests. “The hard truth is that national interests often outweigh general commitments to bigger ideals,” he wrote. If defeating Russia is central to Borrell’s and the EU’s “bigger ideals”, why should the rest of the world, especially in the Global South, embrace the West’s self-serving priorities?

    Borrell also needs to be reminded that the West’s “global battle of narratives” had been lost well before February 24. Much of the Global South rightly sees the West’s interests at odds with its own. This seemingly cynical view is an outcome of decades – in fact, hundreds of years – of real experiences, starting with colonialism and ending, presently, with the routine military and political interventions.

    Borrell speaks of ‘bigger ideals’, as if the West is the only morally mature entity that is capable of thinking about rights and wrongs in a selfless, detached manner. In addition to there being no evidence to support Borrell’s claim, such condescending language, itself an expression of cultural arrogance, makes it impossible for non-western countries to accept, or even engage, with the West regarding the morality of its politics.

    Borrell, for example, accuses Russia of a “deliberate attempt to use food as a weapon against the most vulnerable countries in the world, especially in Africa”. Even if we accept this problematic premise as a morally driven position, how can Borrell justify the West’s sanctions that have effectively starved many people in “vulnerable countries” around the world?

    Perhaps, Afghans are the most vulnerable people in the world today, thanks to 20 years of a devastating US/NATO war which has killed and maimed tens of thousands. Though the US and its western allies were forced out of Afghanistan last August, billions of dollars of Afghan money are illegally frozen in Western bank accounts, pushing the whole country to the brink of starvation. Why can Borrell not apply his ‘bigger ideals’ in this particular scenario, demanding immediate unfreezing of Afghan money?

    In truth, Borrell, the EU, NATO and the West are not only losing the global battle of narratives, they have never won it in the first place. Winning or losing that battle never mattered to Western leaders in the past, because the Global South was hardly considered when the West made its unilateral decisions regarding war, military invasions or economic sanctions.

    The Global South matters now, simply because the West is no longer determining all political outcomes, as was often the case. Russia, China, India and others are now relevant, because they can collectively balance out the skewed global order that has been dominated by Borrell and his likes for far too long.

    The post The War “Diplomat”: How Borrell, the West Lost the “Global Battle of Narratives” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Prison conditions during lockdown amounted to ‘torture’

    This article includes discussion of self-harm and self-inflicted death

    A report published by User Voice has found that the treatment of people imprisoned during the coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdown amounted to the UN’s definition of torture. User Voice is a charity led by formerly incarcerated people.

    Harrowing testimonies published in the report reflect just how inhumane the prison system is, and how much power the state has to violate the rights of imprisoned people.

    Inhumane conditions

    User Voice and researchers from Queen’s University Belfast conducted the study. It involved over 1,400 surveys of imprisoned people across 9 prisons in England and Wales.

    85% of the people surveyed reported being locked in their cells for 23 hours per day during lockdown. According to the UN’s definition, solitary confinement is being locked in a cell for more than 22 hours per day. The UN states that 15 days of solitary confinement in a row is “torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”.

    The UN prohibits this cruel treatment of imprisoned people. But the User Voice report shows that people across the justice system endured, and continue to endure, even longer solitary confinement than that.

    Many reported being denied access to showers and gym facilities for days on end. Others highlighted that during lockdown they suffered the erosion of access to healthcare, opportunities to practice religion, and rehabilitation programmes including education.

    Meanwhile, nearly 60% of surveyed prisoners had no family visits throughout lockdown, including those with children.

    Summarising the dehumanising experience of imprisonment, one survey respondent said:

    The prison as an institution does not care about us inmates, they just throw us behind the door and treat us like animals.

    Mental health crisis

    Unsurprisingly, these inhumane conditions had a devastating impact on imprisoned people’s mental wellbeing during the pandemic.

    A young respondent held in a youth offending institute said:

    Just not getting out your cell makes you want to scream, innit, makes you feel so depressed every day.

    Instead of investing in systems to urgently support these victims of state-sanctioned torture, prisons cut access to mental health services. Indeed, three in five survey respondents noted that they had “worse” or “much worse” access to mental health support during lockdown.

    The study suggests that levels of depression among imprisoned people are almost 5 times higher than the general population. And half of respondents reported symptoms anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

    Before the pandemic, the charity INQUEST raised concerns about the rapidly increasing rates of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in prisons. INQUEST works to support victims of state violence. Despite warnings to improve conditions, the government refused to act.

    2021 saw a 28% increase in the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison custody. 69% of all deaths of 18- to 39-year-olds in prisons during this period were self-inflicted. This is the tragic result of the state leaving those behind bars to languish in inhumane conditions.

    Citing lockdown conditions as a reason for the rise in self-inflicted deaths in prisons, one person behind bars explained:

    I know there has been at least 7 suicides in the last 14 months in this jail alone. Since April, there’s been at least 3 deaths, 2 have hung themselves… it’s only since April. That’s increased since Covid.

    Compassion, not punishment

    Rather than prioritising support and rehabilitation services for those behind bars, the government is pressing ahead with plans to further expand the prison estate. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) previously committed to £4bn to create 20,000 more prison places. Then in June, it committed a further £500m towards creating 2,600 more prison places. The state’s so-called “next generation of prisons” include greenwashed ‘sustainably built’ prisons and ‘secure schools‘ to imprison children.

    Building more human cages, whatever their guise, won’t improve conditions for the people held in those dehumanising institutions. It will simply create more places to funnel vulnerable and marginalised people into the system.

    Imprisoned people’s experiences of lockdown totally contradict the state’s claims that prisons play a rehabilitative function in society. As one imprisoned person said:

    Their idea of rehabilitating is locking us up in cells and forgetting about us.

    Prisons don’t keep us safe. They are literal sites of torture, where members of our communities are removed from their families, held captive, and traumatised. This does nothing to address the causes of social harm. Social harm is rooted in poverty and other inequalities which the government has entrenched through years of austerity and punitive policies.

    After creating new laws that target marginalised communities, and exacerbating the cost of living crisis, the state will have no trouble filling its new prison places.

    Imprisoned people remain one of the most marginalised groups in society. Those of us on the outside must urgently listen to and amplify their experiences. We must advocate for those behind bars – and demand an end to the expansion of the inhumane prison industry.

    Featured image via Jonny Gios/Unsplash resized 770 x 403 px

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

  • Researchers warn of growing potential for mass killings in Papua region

    By Victor Mambor and Alvin Prasetyo in Jayapura

    The US Holocaust Memorial Museum is warning in a new report that mass killings of civilians could occur in Indonesia’s troubled West Papua region in the next year to 18 months if current conditions deteriorate to a worst-case scenario.

    Although large-scale violence against civilians is not occurring yet in Papua, early warning signs are visible and warrant attention, says the report, titled “Don’t Abandon Us: Preventing Mass Atrocities in Papua.”

    The museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide published the 45-page report this week authored by an Indonesian, Made Supriatma, who conducted field research in the region.

    “Indonesia ranks 27th on the list of countries with risks of mass atrocities. This report should be considered as an early warning,” Supriatma said.

    A combination of factors — increasing rebel attacks, better coordination and organisation of pro-independence civilian groups, and the ease of communication — makes it plausible that the unrest could reach a new level in the next 12-18 months, the report said.

    “If political and social unrest persist, and if it were to spread across the region, it is possible that the Indonesian government could determine that the scale or persistence of the protests would justify a more severe response, which could lead to large-scale killing of civilians,” it said.

    The risks are rooted in factors such as past mass atrocities in Indonesia, the exclusion of indigenous Papuans from political decision-making, Jakarta’s failure to address their grievances and conflicts over the exploitation of the region’s resources, according to the report.

    Human rights abuses
    Other factors include Papuans’ resentment over Jakarta’s failure to hold accountable security personnel implicated in human rights abuses and conflict between indigenous Papuans and migrants from other parts of Indonesia over economic, political, religious, and ideological issues, it said.

    Under one scenario that the report envisions, pro-Jakarta Papuan militia, backed by the military and police, commit mass atrocities against pro-independence Papuans.

    But such a scenario depends on indigenous Papuan groups remaining divided into pro-Jakarta and pro-independence groups, it said. The other scenario involves Indonesian migrants and Indonesian security forces committing atrocities against indigenous Papuans, the study said.

    "Don't Abandon Us"
    “Don’t Abandon Us”: Preventing mass atrocities in Papua, Indonesia. Image: EWP cover

    The report recommends that the government improve freedom of information and monitoring atrocity risks, manage conflicts through nonviolent means, and address local grievances and drivers of conflict.

    Supriatma said indigenous Papuans he spoke to as part of his research confirmed that real and perceived discrimination had fueled an “us-against-them” mentality between indigenous Papuans and Indonesians.

    Papua, on the western side of New Guinea Island, has been the scene of a low-level pro-independence insurgency since the mainly Melanesian region was incorporated into Indonesia in a United Nations-administered ballot in the late 1960s.

    In 1963, Indonesian forces invaded Papua — like Indonesia, a former Dutch colony — and annexed the region.

    Only 1025 people voted in the UN-sponsored referendum in 1969 that locals and activists said was a sham, but the United Nations accepted the result, essentially endorsing Jakarta’s rule.

    ‘Not based on facts’
    An expert at the Indonesian presidential staff office, Theofransus Litaay, questioned the study’s validity.

    “There’s something wrong in the identification of research questions. The author extrapolated events in East Timor to his research,” he said, referring to violence by pro-Jakarta militias before and after East Timor’s vote for independence from Indonesia in 1999.

    “It’s not based on the facts on the ground,” he said, without elaborating.

    Gabriel Lele, a senior researcher with the Papuan Task Force at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, said the report was based on limited data.

    “It is true that there has been an escalation of violence, but the main perpetrators are the OPM [Free Papua Movement] and the victims have been civilians, soldiers and police,” lele said.

    He said rebels had also attacked indigenous Papuans who did not support the pro-independence movement.

    Violence has intensified in Papua since 2018, when pro-independence rebels attacked workers who were building roads and bridges in Nduga regency, killing 20 people, including an Indonesian soldier.

    Suspected rebels killed civilians
    In the latest violence, suspected rebels gunned down 10 civilians, mostly non-indigenous Papuans, and wounded two others on July 16.

    A local rebel commander from the OPM’s armed wing, Egianus Kogoya, claimed responsibility.

    “We suspect they were spies, so we shot them dead on the spot,” the Media Indonesia newspaper quoted him as saying on Monday.

    The attack in Nduga regency came a little more than two weeks after legislators voted to create three new provinces in Papua amid opposition from indigenous people and rebel groups.

    In March this year, insurgents killed eight workers who were repairing a telecommunications tower in Beoga, a district of Puncak regency.

    No desire to address racism
    Reverend Dr Benny Giay, a member of the Papua Church Council, said Jakarta had not shown a desire to address racism against Papuans, who are ethnically Melanesian, and instead branded pro-independence groups terrorists.

    “Authorities allow arms trade between armed groups and members of the TNI [military] and police, which perpetuates the violence and in the end can have fatal consequences for the indigenous people,” Dr Giay said.

    The influx of migrants from other parts of Indonesia has created inter-communal tensions and conflicts over regional governance, analysts said.

    Indigenous people are concerned that a massive project to build a trans-Papua highway, as part of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s drive to boost infrastructure, could lead to economic domination by outsiders and the presence of more troops, said Cahyo Pamungkas, a researcher from the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN).

    “The road will mainly benefit non-Papuans, and indigenous people will benefit little economically because they are not ready to be involved in the economic system that the government wants to build,” Cahyo said.

    Republished from Benar News. Co-author Victor Mambor is editor-in-chief of the indigenous Papuan newspaper and website Jubi.

  • The Shameful UN “List of Shame”

    “We regret we failed to protect you.” This was part of a statement issued by United Nations human rights experts on July 14, urging the Israeli government to release Palestinian prisoner Ahmad Manasra. Only 14 years old at the time of his arrest and torture by Israeli forces, Manasra is now 20 years old. His case is a representation of Israel’s overall inhumane treatment of Palestinian children.

    The experts’ statement was forceful and heartfelt. It accused Israel of depriving young Manasra “of his childhood, family environment, protection and all the rights he should have been guaranteed as a child.” It referred to the case as ‘haunting’, considering Manasra’s “deteriorating mental conditions”. The statement went further, declaring that “this case … is a stain on all of us as part of the international human rights community”.

    Condemning Israel for its ill-treatment of Palestinian children, whether those under siege in war-stricken Gaza, or under military occupation and apartheid in the rest of the occupied territories in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, is commonplace.

    Yet, somehow, Israel was still spared a spot on the unflattering list, issued annually by the United Nations Secretary-General, naming and shaming governments and groups that commit grave violations against children and minors anywhere in the world.

    Oddly, the report does recognize Israel’s horrific record of violating children’s rights in Palestine. It details some of these violations, which UN workers have directly verified. This includes “2,934 grave violations against 1,208 Palestinian children” in the year 2021 alone. However, the report equates between Israel’s record, one of the most dismal in the world, and that of Palestinians, namely the fact that 9 Israeli children were impacted by Palestinian violence in that whole year.

    Though the deliberate harming of a single child is regrettable regardless of the circumstances or the perpetrator, it is mind-boggling that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres found it appropriate to equate the systematic violations carried out by the Israeli military as a matter of course and the 9 Israeli minors harmed by Palestinian armed groups, whether intentionally or not.

    To deal with the obvious discrepancy between Palestinian and Israeli child victims, the UN report lumped together all categories to distract from the identity of the perpetrator, thus lessening the focus on the Israeli crimes. For example, the report states that a total of 88 children were killed throughout Palestine, of whom 69 were killed in Gaza and 17 in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. However, the report breaks down these murders in such a way that conflates Palestinian and Israeli children as if purposely trying to confuse the reader. When read carefully, one discovers that all of these killings were carried out by Israeli forces, except for two.

    More, the report uses the same logic to break down the number of children maimed in the conflict, though of the 1,128 maimed children, only 7 were Israelis. Of the remainder, 661 were maimed in Gaza and 464 in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

    The report goes on to blame “armed Palestinian groups” for some of the Palestinian casualties, who were allegedly injured as a result of “accidents involving children who were near to military training exercises”. Assuming that this is the case, accidents of this nature cannot be considered “grave violations” as they are, by the UN’s own definition, accidental.

    The confusing breakdown of these numbers, however, was itself not accidental, as it allowed Guterres the space to declare that “should the situation repeat itself in 2022, without meaningful improvement, Israel should be listed.”

    Worse, Guterres’ report went further to reassure the Israelis that they are on the right track by stating that “so far this year, we have not witnessed a similar number of violations”, as if to suggest that the right-wing Israeli government of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid has purposely changed its policies regarding the targeting of Palestinian children. Of course, there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

    On June 27, Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCIP) reported that Israel “had been intensifying its aggression” against children in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the beginning of 2022. DCIP confirmed that as many as 15 Palestinian children were killed by Israeli forces in the first six months of 2022, almost the same number killed in the same regions throughout the entirety of the previous year. This number includes 5 children in the occupied city of Jenin alone. Israel even targeted journalists who attempted to report on these violations, including Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed on May 11, and Ali Samoudi, who was shot in the back on the very same day.

    Much more can be said, of course, about the besiegement of hundreds of thousands of children in the Gaza Strip, known as the ‘world’s largest open-air prison’, and many more in the occupied West Bank. The lack of basic human rights, including life-saving medicine and, in the case of Gaza, clean water, hardly suggests any measurable improvement in Israel’s track record as far as Palestinian children’s rights are concerned.

    If you think that the UN report is a step in the right direction, think again. 2014 was one of the most tragic years for Palestinian children where, according to a previous UN report, 557 children were killed and 4,249 were injured, the vast majority of whom were targeted during the Israeli war on Gaza. Human Rights Watch stated that the number of killed Palestinians “was the third-highest in the world that year”. Still, Israel was not blacklisted on the UN ‘List of Shame’. The clear message here is that Israel may target Palestinian children as it pleases, as there will be no legal, political or moral accountability for its actions.

    This is not what Palestinians are expecting from the United Nations, an organization that supposedly exists to end armed conflicts and bring about peace and security for all. For now, the message emanating from the world’s largest international institution to Manasra and the rest of Palestine’s children will remain unchanged: “We regret we failed to protect you.”

    The post The Shameful UN “List of Shame” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Black Alliance for Peace Condemns Renewal of the UN Mission to Haiti

    On Friday, July 15, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously adopted the resolution to extend the mandate of the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH) for one year (until July 15, 2023). The vote took place two days after it was postponed by the People’s Republic of China, which wanted additional consultation and significant adjustments to the resolution co-penned by Mexico and the United States.

    The Black Alliance for Peace welcomed this delay, as well as several of the objections to BINUH’s renewal raised by China and supported by the Russian Federation. In reviewing the terms of BINUH’s renewal, we continue to condemn the UN Mission to Haiti as a foreign occupation and as a violation of the sovereignty of the Haitian people, as we outlined last week in our press release and open letter to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and in our communications to government representatives of China and Russia.

    Nonetheless, we recognize the adjustments made to the resolution—spearheaded by China and supported by Russia—represent a step forward against the often rubber-stamping of U.S.-led Western hegemony in Haitis. These adjustments included prioritizing the authority of regional institutions (like CARICOM) partnered with Haitian authorities over UN police advisers, as well as calling on states to stop the trafficking of weapons and ammunition to non-state combatants in Haiti. Yet, China’s suggested adjustments fall short because the focus is solely on the current upswing in paramilitary violence, not on the UN occupation itself.

    We ask again: What has the UN mission done in its 18-year militarized presence in Haiti except foment pain and violence on the Haitian people? Why does BINUH—and UN Special Representative in Haiti Helen La Lime—have such an outsized role in Haitian politics? When will the United States, Canada and France take responsibility for their promotion of the 2004 coup d’etat against Haiti’s democratically elected president? Why do the UN Mission and Western rulers of Haiti continue to support the unelected de facto Prime Minister, Dr. Ariel Henry, and his unpopular Pati Ayisyen Tèt Kale (PHTK)—the violent right-wing government installed by the West and the direct cause of the current crisis? Why not listen to the Haitian people who call for an end to foreign meddling and occupation?

    We also note, with disappointment, the way the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has repeatedly fallen in line with the imperialist wishes of the United States and has supported the full renewal of the UN Mission. In their upcoming “delegation” to Haiti, we encourage CARICOM to reconsider this position and instead support Black sovereignty, by working to facilitate an end to the UN Mission to Haiti. There cannot be justice and self-determination in Haiti without an end to the UN Mission and re-establishing Haitian control of Haiti’s affairs.

    The Black Alliance for Peace calls on civil society organizations and the regional nation-states of the Americas to monitor the situation, oppose continued foreign occupation, and support sovereignty in Haiti. We want to remind CARICOM and the leaders of the Americas: The Americas cannot be free and sovereign unless all countries are free and sovereign. We say No to Occupation, Yes to Self-Determination.

    The post Black Alliance for Peace Condemns Renewal of the UN Mission to Haiti first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Drought in the Horn of Africa: Worst in 40 Years

    The Horn of Africa (HoA) is once again being battered by climate change induced drought, with the UN report, over “20 million people, and at least 10 million children facing severe drought conditions.”

    Desperately needed support from UN agencies (World Food Programme (WFP), UNHCR and UNICEF) is limited due to lack of donations from member states. WFP have been forced to halve food rations due to the “lowest levels of funding on record”. Leading to what UNICEF describes as a “humanitarian catastrophe……. Urgent aid is needed to prevent parts of the region sliding into famine.” The disruption caused to supply chains and food production by the war in Ukraine is adding to the crisis, dramatically increasing food prices and limiting availability.

    The region’s agriculture has been decimated by year on year rising temperatures and decreasing rainfall. Food insecurity, in a region with some of the poorest people in the world, is intensifying with the threat of famine looming, and food prices have sky rocketed. Livestock have perished – in Ethiopia alone 2.1 million livestock have died and 22 million are at risk, emancipated with little or no milk production – the primary source of nutrition for young children.

    Child malnutrition is increasing and huge numbers of people are being displaced. Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti and Eritrea are all impacted by the most severe drought in forty years.

    The effect on rural communities, and children specifically, is devastating. UNICEF estimate 2 million children are in need of treatment for “severe acute malnutrition,” particularly in Ethiopia and in the arid lands of Northern Kenya and Somalia, where the drought is most severe.

    As well as decimating food production, drought is intensifying the water crisis in the area – with, the UN say, 8.5 million people (including 4.2 million children) facing water shortages. In Ethiopia, where around 60 per cent of the population (roughly 70 million) do not have access to clean drinking water with or without a drought, the situation is dire. Streams, wells and ponds, that people living in remote areas rely on, are either drying up or are completely parched. Such sterile water sources become contaminated by animal and human waste, increasing the risk of water borne diseases, cholera and diarrhea, which are the leading causes of death among children under five in the country; cases of measles have also been increasing at alarming rates in Ethiopia and Somalia, resulting in some cases in deaths.

    Desperate families are being driven to extreme measures to try to survive, with hundreds of thousands leaving their homes in search of food, water, fresh pasture for animals and assistance. This is creating and intensifying numerous issues: Access to health care, education and protection/reproductive services is made difficult, or impossible. Children are forced out of school – approximately 1.1 million; schools close (in a region overflowing with children where 15 million children are already not in school); girls and women are made more vulnerable to physical coercion, sexual/child labor and forced marriage; displacement of persons explodes. Already a massive problem throughout the region, specifically in Ethiopia, where, according to UNHCR (as of March 2022) “an estimated 5,582,000 persons” were internally displaced due to armed conflict and natural disasters.

    “Natural” disaster no longer natural

    As the world heats up due to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) pouring into the lower atmosphere, the inevitability of extreme weather patterns including drought increases.

    Like forest fires, heat waves and monsoon rains, drought was historically regarded as a “natural disaster”, but the frequency and intensity of such events is no longer “natural” and must now be understood to be man-made. Far from being freak happenings, such catastrophic climate explosions are becoming commonplace, and despite producing virtually none of the poisons that are driving climate change, those most affected are the poorest people in the poorest countries or regions.

    The seed of the deadly drought in the HoA was planted and fed by the behavior of people in the US, in Europe, Japan and other rich countries. It is the materialistic lifestyles of wealthy developed nations (and disproportionately the richest people within such countries), rooted in irresponsible consumerism (including diets centered around animal food produce), that has caused and is perpetuating the environmental crisis. But to their utter shame the governments of such nations refuse to honor their debt, their responsibility to clean up the mess. On the contrary, because economic health is dependent on rapacious consumption, they continue to promote modes of living that are deepening the crisis.

    Commitments made 12 years ago in 2009 by rich nations to give 100 billion USD a year to developing countries are yet to be fulfilled. In 2019 a high of 79.6 billion USD was reached, 71% of which was in the form of loans. Loans – for some of the poorest nations in the world, to mitigate the impact of climate change that they haven’t caused; loans that enable donor nations political and economic influence, perpetuating post-colonial exploitation and control, and ensuring Sub-Saharan Africa remains impoverished, and, more or less enslaved.

    Imperial powers have outsourced the most severe effects of climate change; they either refuse to act at all or offer limited support with strings to countries and regions most at risk. At the V20 Climate Vulnerable Finance Summit in July 2021, heads of state demanded that higher income nations do more to meet their promises and called for grants not loans. UN Secretary General, António Guterres said that in order to “rebuild trust, developed countries must clarify now how they will effectively deliver $100 billion in climate finance annually to the developing world, as was promised over a decade ago.” But four months later at COP 26 in Glasgow, where climate finance was a primary issue under consideration, once again the rich nations failed. Failed to honor their word, failed to act responsibly in the interests of poorer nations, failed to stand for the collective good and the health of the planet. Shameful, but predictable. Politicians cannot be and, in fact, are not trusted; national and international climate pledges should be legally binding and enforceable.

    Climate change and the environmental emergency more broadly is a global crisis; as such, it requires a global approach. This has been said many times, and yet national self-interest and political weakness continue to dominate the policies and priorities of western governments/politicians. If this crisis, which is the greatest issue humanity has ever faced, is to be met, and healing is to begin in earnest, this narrow nationalistic approach must change. As with other major areas of concern – armed conflict, inequality, displacement of persons, poverty – united, coordinated global policies and a powerful United Nations (UN) are urgently needed, but the single most significant change that is required is a fundamental shift in attitudes; a move away from tribalism, competition and division to cooperation and unity. A recognition, not intellectually or theoretically, but actually, that humanity is one, that we form part of a collective life that is the planet.

    As the UN has said the men women and children in the Horn of Africa whose lives are being ravaged by drought need “the world’s attention and action, now.” Sustained action rooted in the realization of our individual and collective environmental responsibility. This requires governments to honor commitments: the $100m billion mitigation fund (as grants not loans), and making up the cumulative shortfall; it means funding the UN properly so emergency humanitarian aid can be supplied to those currently affected by drought in the HoA; it means supporting countries most at risk of man-made climate change in drawing up plans and initiating short and long term projects to minimize where possible the social and economic impact of extreme weather events; and individually, it means living thoughtful, conscious lives, in which the effect on the natural world is at the forefront of daily decisions, including diet, shopping and travel. It is our world, the people displaced by drought in Ethiopia and Somalia are our brethren, and we are all responsible for them.

    The post Drought in the Horn of Africa: Worst in 40 Years first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.