Being Frank on Rights

The Indigenous Paraguayans are Tired of being Sidelined

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:19:14 -0400

The rights of the indigenous peoples of Paraguay have received a lot of information in recent weeks. Historic discrimination has resulted in three sentences by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) on matters related to ancestral land rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has recently evaluated the country’s fulfilment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have together with NGOs (who have released shadow reports) criticised the government’s negligence when it comes to these rights. The country’s Institute for Indigenous Peoples has been involved with scandals related to the sale of indigenous lands and moreover, one indigenous group has decided to take matters into its own hands.

Discrimination of indigenous groups

Official statistics in Paraguay claim that there are approximately 108.600 indigenous peoples, making up 1.7% of the 6.5 million people that live there. Like other Latin-American countries, the indigenous peoples of here have suffered from widespread discrimination. In education they suffer from disproportionate levels of illiteracy. Health wise they have more difficulties reaching primary medical attention and their maternal and child mortality are proportionally higher. The indigenous population generally also have less access to water and electricity.

The Paraguayan constitution prohibits discrimination (Art.46-48). Nonetheless, these provisions have not translated into effective measures that give actual protection for vulnerable groups. There is in fact no specific legislation designed to combat discrimination in Paraguay. In 2007 one such bill was presented in the Senate, but it has not been met with the political will necessary to convert it into law (primarily since the bill would make reference to sexual orientation). The protection of indigenous peoples can be found in Law 904/81 and the 1981 statute of indigenous communities (amended in 1996). None of these however proportion specific provisions against discrimination.

Ancestral land rights

The right to their traditional lands is vital for indigenous populations, anywhere. It is a crucial element to their identity, their livelihood and way of life. This has been recognized by the UN Human Rights Committee, when it stated that cultural expression for indigenous peoples is closely associated with the use of its land and its resources. The second part of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention sets out the land rights of indigenous peoples. It states that ‘governments shall respect the special importance for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned of their relationship with the lands or territories’ (Art.13) and that ‘The rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognised’ (Art.14(1)). Even if the lands were not exclusively occupied by them, but where they had conventionally had access for traditional activities and subsistence, this access should be safeguarded (Art.14(1)). Which lands these are should be identified (Art.14(2)) and ‘Adequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned’ (Art.14(3)). Finally, Art.16(1) clearly manifests that indigenous peoples ‘shall not be removed from the lands which they occupy’.

Despite the fact that Paraguay is a state party to the ILO Convention and its rights are unmistakeable, several indigenous groups in Paraguay have nonetheless been forced of their ancestral lands, often to make way for agriculture or animal husbandry. In fact, only 45% of the indigenous peoples in Paraguay were owners of their land in 2002. Even in the Chaco region, where the indigenous people make up 60% of the entire population, the land belonging to them only represented 1.8%. On occasions where ancestral indigenous land has been sold, it has legally been owned by Indi, the Paraguayan Institute for Indigenous peoples, who can only acquire lands to freely transfer them back to indigenous communities. This mismanagement was criticised by the UN HRC, and is particularly scandalous considering that its mission is to ‘Fulfil, assure and ensure the compliance with indigenous peoples’ rights…’. Indi, under the leadership of Ruben Quesnel, has not only failed to assure compliance with the ILO Convention, but it has done quite the opposite. It has violated the indigenous people’s human rights. Fortunately, there seems to be an interest in remedying this situation. Quesnel has been sacked and is facing legal proceedings for the sale of land belonging to the Cuyabia community of the Ayoreo group. The prosecution is based on Art.64 of the National Constitution which expressly prohibits the sale of land destined for the indigenous population. Moreover, on a positive note, Quesnel has been replaced Rodolfo Aseretto, a lawyer and former UN consultant, who claimed he only accepted the appointment by President Franco since he was given extended liberties to legally pursue those who violated the rights of the indigenous peoples. The change of direction however, proves Amnesty International right in that Indi suffers from an institutional frailty as it is very dependent on whom it is governed by.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Paraguay is the only American country to have been sentenced three times by the IACtHR on land rights issues. In 2005 and 2006 the IACtHR ordered the Paraguayan government to return ancestral lands to the exnet groups Yakye Axa and Sawhoyamaxa. These traditionally hunter-gatherer group’s survival has been threatened by cattle farmers, who have been allowed to deforest areas where the indigenous people have lived, to prepare the lands for animal husbandry. For more than 20 years these two communities have been forced to accommodate themselves on the side of a highway, where they have inadequate medical attention, medicines and education. They are a long way from their traditional lands in the Chaco and are unable to live out their traditional activities which are fundamental for their subsistence. The IACtHR sentenced Paraguay for violating the right to a fair trial, a lack of legal protection, for violating property rights and the right to life of these two communities. Despite the fact that their lands were ordered to have been returned by 2008 and 2009 respectively, these communities have continued to live on the side of the road as the court’s sentences have not been fulfilled.

A third exnet group, Xákmok Kásek, also received a favourable ruling by the IACtHR in 2010. Just like the two fellow groups, these have been removed from their ancestral land and the court has set a limit for September 2013 for the return of these lands. According to Amnesty International, some negotiations have taken place, but the court’s orders have not been fulfilled.

Paraguay has established an inter-institutional commission to fulfil international sentences (CICSI), but Amnesty International claims this commission has not been sufficiently effective, especially when it comes to guaranteeing indigenous peoples their land back. The organization says that CICSI has been more concerned with finding alternative land rather than restoring these groups to their ancestral land. The government, however, claims CICSI has been effective as it managed to negotiate a friendly agreement with the Kelyenmagatema group in a process with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR). Alternative land was found, but when analysing their acceptance, one has to take into account that they were exposed to harassment by the private company which owned the land they were claiming. Furthermore, part of the agreement was to better the groups socioeconomic development. Many of these commitments have not been fulfilled.

Taking matters into own hands

In January of 2012 an agreement was reached between the government and the current landowner of Yakye Axa’s ancestral lands, for the group to come back their traditional lands in the Chaco region. The agreement required that the government construct a road so that they could physically return. This was however delayed, according to the government, for meteorological reasons. The fund for their communal development, which was ordered by the IACtHR, was also delayed.

The Sawhoyamaxa have decided to take matters into their own hands. In March 2013, after having waited 23 years and gone through every legal avenue there is, they reclaimed their land. The government has been unwilling or unable to reach an agreement with the current landowner and the Sawhoyamaxa decided that enough was enough. It now represents a dilemma for the government, since they have accepted the court verdicts but have not actually managed to legally return the land. Whatever it decides to do, they must respect the human rights of the native Paraguayans and in the future it must make sure that it consults them when developing laws and policies that may affect them. It is time for the government to live up to its obligations and provide genuine protection for the indigenous population!

The Spanish Government Must Prioritise Human Rights, Not Austerity

Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:37:00 -0500

When 26 year old Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in December 2010 it sparked international outrage throughout the Arab world and beyond. No longer able to live with his frustration after having his merchandise confiscated and being publicly humiliated by officials, Bouazizi decided to take his life in a public demonstration of frustration – self-immolation. The reactions were extreme and eventually led to the rebellions that have overthrown Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Tunisia), Hosni Mubarak (Egypt), Muammar Ghaddafi (Libya) and the situation in Syria seems dire for Bashar Al-Assad.

Without going deeper into the conflicts of the misbranded ‘Arab spring’, there was evidently a frustration with the lack of democracy, accountability for government actions, as well respect for economic and social rights. Similarly, in Spain the situation is getting increasingly desperate. Public despair is evident. Suicides have become widespread. As much as 1 out 3 is related to evictions. On the 18^th of February a mother of three set herself on fire inside a local bank branch. Meanwhile, the banks have been rescued. The government and members of the royal family are accused of rampant corruption but no one has been held accountable. Unemployment is on the rise. Public protests at austerity measures have been tackled with augmented incidents of police violence in an attempt to silence the discontent. The government in Spain are not tackling their crisis-related human rights responsibilities.

Austerity and frustration

Spain entered into recession in 2008, feeling the consequences of the economic crisis that started in the U.S. However, Spain’s problems ran deeper, with trade deficits, loss of competitiveness and the property bubble that finally burst. Unemployment, a traditional problem in Spain, which had bettered since the late 1990’s and up until the economic crisis, has again rapidly increased and is among the highest in Europe. There have therefore been massive lay-offs in almost every sector, in addition to major salary reductions. The younger generations, which are the highest educated in Spanish history seem to have no future, as almost 50% are without a job. In a supposed attempt to make it easier to higher people, the government implemented a labour reform in 2012 which was criticised since it reduces the rights of employees by making them more exposable.

The negative circle has been created. There is reduced trade, less people are employed and many are laid off, their rights as workers are reduced, those who are employed often have their salaries reduced, most people purchase less, fewer taxes are paid, public debt increases, fewer services can continue, the faith in pay-back ability of loans by both government and individuals is reduced and Spain’s credit ratings is reduced and there is less willing to invest there. The response from the EU and national governments has been drastic cuts to public services.

The Spanish population are infuriated because their rights have been considered expendable. Their rights have been sacrificed. Simultaneously, the banking sector, in spite of their appalling parachutes and bonuses, has been rescued with public funds. Rescuing a sector whose leaders award themselves with unimaginable bonuses when they are in crisis and in need of rescue is unacceptable to many. What makes matters worse is that the banks have made good money from the previously abnormally high housing prices that stemmed, to some extent, from speculation. Parallel to this there have been serious accusations of corruption against the governing ‘Popular Party’ (PP). The Gürtel case is an on-going one including allegations of bribery, money laundering and tax evasion. Similarly, there are on-going accusations of slush funds having made their way from the construction sector, through the former treasurer Bárcenas of the PP, to Prime Minister, Rajoy. People are disgusted with the political class as there seems to be little willingness to be transparent and assist with what should be exhaustive investigations. Also the socialist opposition party, PSOE, has been criticised of corruption. Their ability to accept criticism also proved to be weak, when many party-members called for the sacking of Beatríz Talegón, for condemning the party’s superfluous spending and the party’s limited attention their youth group. There is therefore a general contempt for the political class as a whole.

Moreover, the government has promised that the cuts would lead to better times, but they have not changed anything. These measures have not really transformed the negative trend. Unemployment is still through the roof, hundreds are evicted from their homes daily and those who speak up have faced harsh responses from the government.

Human Rights must be Part of the Solution

It is not only the economic and social rights that have been actively ignored by the Spanish government. Also the civil and political rights have been disregarded. On several occasions, the outrage sparked by the devastating politics enacted by the government, have led to widespread pacific protest, to which the government has responded with excessive force.

In February of 2012 thousands took the streets of Valencia to protests against cuts to the education sector. Many were detained and numerous people suffered from police violence. The Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz even recognized there had been ‘some excesses’ and promised action would be taken to hold the responsible accountable.

In September, more people took to the streets of Madrid. Video images of police officers near the Atocha train station using excessive force, without any identification, went viral. Journalists who were recording these incidents of violence against protesters also became objects of such violence.

The Spanish government has been too inclined to use riot-police, who on to many occasions have used disproportional levels of force. They have also been too quick to resort to force, when that should only be a last resort. Nonetheless, when such incidents have taken place there should be accountability, which of course there has not. The General Director of the Police stated that investigations resulting from the Atocha repression concluded that the ‘minimum possible force’ was used.

The Spanish government has through such actions scared many out of taking a stand and voicing their opinions publicly. However, their frustration will not disappear without a real transformation and the protection of their human rights. Suicide in Spain has become the first cause of death by violent means, surpassing the number deaths from traffic accidents. In 2012 some estimate that there were over 500 evictions every day in Spain. According to the organization ‘Stop Desahucios (Stop Evictions), 34% of the total number of suicides in Spain is caused by evictions. Estimates say nine people commit suicide in Spain every day – meaning three per day commit suicide due to evictions. This is a human rights issue that needs to be addressed seriously.

The government has been too evasive on this matter. The General Secretary of the PP and President of Castilla-La Mancha, Dolores de Cospedal’s statements to prohibit the use of words such as ‘desahucios’ (evictions), in favour of more obscure words, seem offensive and ignorant of the government’s responsibility.

The UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has called on the government to ‘intervene and regulate the market in land and housing, to secure the effective implementation of the right to adequate, affordable and accessible housing by bringing down housing and land prices’. When the property bubble exploded and their property value decreased, people who had bought property were left with mortgages they could not repay, especially since many lost their job or had their salaries reduced. Under Spanish law, financial institutions can repossess the house for 60 per cent of the appraised value of the property (previously 50 per cent), and pursue families for the outstanding amount, in addition to legal court fees and accrued interest. In Spain, families lose not only their only home, but moreover, they remain indebted often for life. Unfortunately, in contrast to many other countries, there is no procedure to give a second opportunity to debtors in good faith.

It is time that the Spanish government rethought its cuts-obsessed policies. It must first and foremost, ensure that its citizens are allowed to voice their opinions and assemble in peaceful protests if they are not satisfied. Furthermore, it must protect the right to adequate housing. People who are evicted from their houses must have access to an adequate alternative housing option. Additionally, the government should, in the interest of its people, instruct the bank to minimise evictions and to implement debt recovery plans for those in debt.

The people living in Spain should be their priority, rather than jeopardising rights such as health, labour rights, and access to food and adequate housing. These are active policies that take human rights into account and which can help prevent eviction-related suicides and self-immolations. Word-play and semantics will not!

The Calderón Era has been a Human Rights Catastrophe

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:38:15 -0500

On the 1^st of December this year the current President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa (PAN), will pass the torch to Enrique Peña Nieto (PRI), after yet another disputed Mexican election. After six years as president it is a good idea to evaluate Calderón’s impact on human rights. History will not by any friend of Calderón as his legacy is appalling. The war on the Mexican drug cartels has failed miserably and sent his country into despair. The interruption of the status quo between cartels and government has been as thought-through as crushing a beehive with one’s bare hands. The use of the military for such a law enforcement task has led to a historic increase in human rights abuses on their behalf. A pre-existing strategy of persecution of human rights defenders and journalists has continued in spite of legal reform to abate this. Military abuses continued to be accepted by military tribunals and was kept out of reach from the civil judicial sector until this week. Public development projects and extraction of natural resources continued to be executed with blatant disregard of indigenous people’s right to be consulted and without respect for their land rights. Legal reforms have been adopted but without tangible results. Impunity for human rights violations remains the status quo in Mexico.

The War against Drugs

Felipe Calderón took office declaring that his primary objective was to tackle the problems related to drug trafficking and the cartels in Mexico. This immense task in a penetrative corrupt country such as Mexico is an ungrateful and immensely challenging mission. There had for a long time been a placid understanding between cartels and the government (at state level and federal) and certain equilibrium existed. Calderón deployed the military to handle this assignment, which is in fact a law enforcement task, and not a matter of defence. This disturbed the existing state of affairs and unleashed a cruel war that will mark Mexico’s history for ever.

Recent cover of the magazine ‘Proceso’

Several high-ranking members of many cartels have been detained in highly publicized arrests (although the posterior judicial process and sentencing are rarely mentioned, if there indeed is one). Nonetheless, the consequences have been terrifying. Estimates suspect that somewhere between 45-80.000 people have been assassinated, and 3-10.000 are victims of forced disappearances. Law enforcement suffers from corruption, disinterest and lack of capacity. Politically the same picture is visible. The military and the police have not only been unable and unwilling to protect the civil population as it is required to, but disgracefully the authorities are suspected of being directly responsible for arbitrary arrests as a method of satisfying statistical requirements. The use of torture as a method of forcefully extracting confessions on behalf of the military and law enforcement has been documented from civil society and the UN Committee Against Torture. 73 civil society organizations working under the umbrella of Red TdT claim the number of torture cases incremented by 500% during Calderón’s term as president. The Mexican Human Rights Commission (CNDH) also confirms a steep increase in the number of complaints regarding the use of torture. Military and law enforcement elements have also been severely criticized for the increase in forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, not only for not granting due protection but also being directly responsible.

Most troubling seems to be the fact that the misery caused by war against the cartels has been in vain. The situation is much worse than six years ago and no real positive effect has come out of it. The most important cartel leaders are still on the loose and the war is much more fragmented, extended and challenging than the pre-Calderón era.

Persecution of Human Rights Defenders

Human rights defenders and journalists have been persecuted for their work in Mexico for a long time. Their efforts and ability to attract attention to public concerns has been a cause of frustration to public authorities and organized crime alike, especially when proving links between the two.

Calderón’s presidency has in this respect not differed much from those before him. Mexico continued to be one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. Simultaneously, human rights defenders were also arrested, harassed, threatened, attacked, forced to seek refuge abroad or murdered. Reports claim that somewhere between 14-30 human rights defenders have disappeared or been assassinated in Mexico this last year. Two emblematic cases are that of Norma Andrade and Alejandro Solalinde;

Late last year Norma Andrade, the founder ‘Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa’ (May our Daughters Return Home), was shot five times. Miraculously she survived. In February an armed man attacked her again, although she was under police protection, but she fought him off and survived again. The reasons behind her attacks is that she has been fighting for women’s rights in Ciudad Juárez, where thousands of women have been murdered and disappeared forcefully for almost a decade with impunity. The awarded protection was so inefficient that Norma Andrade was forced to seek refuge abroad. The UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) also criticized Mexico in 2012 for their lack of protection of women’s rights.

Similarly, Father Alejandro Solalinde, the Oaxacan minister that runs the migrant shelter ‘Hermanos en el Camino’ (Brothers on the Road), has been threatened on his life on several occasions. Solalinde has also been arrested for the work he carries out, which is protecting and aiding irregular migrants from South- and Central-America. These irregular migrants, many of whom try to cross the country to get to the U.S., are often abused, beaten, raped, extorted and murdered on their dangerous path by organized crime members and public authorities. The CNDH estimates that some 20.000 migrants have suffered kidnappings yearly during Calderón’s term as President. Solalinde has been working closely with Amnesty International to document the situation and advocate for the defence of these migrants’ rights. For this he is being persecuted and has been put under public protection. Unfortunately, he knew this to be inefficient and was forced to flee the Mexico for a period. However, the heroic minister has returned to Mexico to continue his work.

This last there was however adopted a law to protect human rights defenders and journalists. The law which is meant to strengthen coordination between state and federal government will establish a protection mechanism composed of a Government Council (government executives and representatives of the CNDH and civil society), an Advisory Council and a National Executive Coordinative. This is indeed a very positive measure in order to provide urgent protection. Nonetheless, Mexico’s real problem with regards to human rights has not normally been creating and adopting legislation; it has rather been effectively respecting and executing it.

Ignoring the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

In San José del Progreso, Oaxaca, we find one of countless examples of how Mexican authorities set the conditions for foreign multinational companies above the rights of its citizens, especially those of indigenous peoples.

In late 2006 the Federal Government granted Fortuna Silver (Canadian) and its Mexican subsidiary Minera Cuzcatlán a concession of about 360 square kilometres of land to mine. This land was located near the ‘ejido’ (agricultural community) of local Zapotec people. Without properly consulting the local population, exploitation of the mines started in blatant violation of the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention.

Resistance was built locally. The reasons were that local authorities tried to excavate in order to install a system that would provide the mining company with water. This excavation would leave the local inhabitants without water. This has caused an escalated between the mining company and the government on one side, and a local opposition group CPUVO on the other. Several members of the CPUVO and other local activists have been arrested, shot and/or killed during this conflict. Indigenous communities all around Mexico suffer similar consequences as ‘local development initiatives’ are implemented without their consultation or consent in lands traditionally important to them. Those who fight for their rights are often the victims of ruthless attacks and murders that in most cases end with impunity.

Reforms

Perhaps the primary advance in human rights under Calderon’s rule has been the constitutional human rights reform adopted in 2011. It enhances the legal status of international human rights conventions to the equivalent of the constitution, which is a major development. Furthermore, it clarifies the responsibility of the authorities with regards to human rights violations and it strengthens the role of the CNDH.

Another positive is the 2008 a constitutional reform that builds the foundation for an adversarial criminal justice system with oral trials, and comprises measures that are vital for promoting respect for human rights, such as including presumption of innocence in the Constitution. This reform has been however been criticized for not being implemented quickly enough. It should according to plan be fully adopted by 2016. Unfortunately this reform also allows for ‘arraigo’ (preventive detention) for up to 80 days, which is in violation of international human rights law.

One final crucial step has been the Supreme Court’s (SCJN) decision to determine Art.57 fraction II, subsection A as unconstitutional, as it was contradictory to Art.13 of the Constitution. This declaration is in line with sentences from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It means that military personnel responsible for abuse of a civilian’s human rights or who act contrary to the military code against another person from the military will not be processed under a military tribunal but under a civilian court with more independence. This is however not Calderón’s accomplishment, but rather the judicial system’s and that of the civil society who fought hard for this to happen.

The Calderón-era will be remembered throughout history for the catastrophic implementation of the war against drugs. There have been legal advances which give reasons to be positive. Unfortunately, the atrocities committed during his reign overshadow any positive accomplishment he would like to attribute to his government.

EU Peace Prize deprives the Nobel Committee of its Credibility

Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:00:24 -0400

The Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 is awarded to the European Union (EU). The award could not come at a worse time as it today seems entirely out of touch with the current situation in Europe. The purpose of honouring the triumphs of the EU with this prize only seems like a retrospective act looking to redeem what is perhaps a historically justified Peace Prize, but which was never awarded. There are however several other grand contributors to peace, most notably Gandhi which never won the prize either. That is not an excuse to award the peace prize for past efforts or achievements. Awarding it to the EU at this current moment is questionable. The EU has waived highly its flag of principles consisting of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, justice, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The reality however is a migration policy which is so obsessed with restricting the access of irregular migrants that it illegally pushes back refugees to the hands of their persecutors and illegally detains asylum seekers in conditions that deprives them of their dignity. As a consequence of the union’s economic policies’ and lack of solidarity, countries are being forced to make cuts, which not only end up violating human rights, but have put fascism on the rise just like the crisis in the 1930’s. Simultaneously, many parties in different Member States are voicing to break out of the union as it they do not consider it in their best interest.

It is however important not to discredit the EU for its achievements which of course have been substantial. They have changed the formerly war-stricken continent, without doubt. The union gradually developed in the aftermath of the Second World War, in a continent who had been plagued by centuries of wars and a much engrained nationalist sentiments that led to the largest genocide and most destructive war ever. The European Steal and Coal Community which was created in 1951 was based on a Kantian idea when six West-European states (including France and West-Germany) would be able to eliminate wars by integrating economic collaboration between democracies. A gradual development in the same direction saw the birth of the European Communities (EC) in 1967. It constantly grew, but only in Western Europe due to the Cold War, and continuously encompassed new areas of collaboration especially within economy and immigration. In 1993 the European Union (EU) was finally created through the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty. With the fall of the Soviet Union East-European countries began to join the union. The EU has achieved more than six decades without war between its Member States, a common monetary zone, and common policies on trade, agriculture and fisheries, among other things.

The justification for honouring the union with the Peace Prize was having ‘contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe … The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe … This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners’.

The EU deserves its merits for having brought together previously hostile States and establishing peacefully collaborative relationships and economic growth. This is such an accomplishment that it may at some point have justified the Peace Prize, as it has advanced peace and reconciliation. However, the award’s justification for the EU’s achievements on human rights strikes me as confusing. Thorbjørn Jagland, Chairman of the Nobel Committee and Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and amid EU enthusiast, should be aware that the major achievements, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have all been developed within the framework of the Council of Europe, not the EU. This is the institution that has made European governments regionally accountable for their human rights abuses. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU first entered into force in 2009. The Charter’s impact on human rights is nowhere near that of the ECHR and the ECtHR as of yet.

The EU is highly vocal about its principles regarding respect for human dignity, justice and the rule of law. However, its immigration policies are the most systematic violation of these principles and human rights that exist in Europe today. Since the 1990’s when African migrants and refugees started arriving in small boats the EU has been obsessed with tightening up their borders. This has led to the creation of the EU’s border agency Frontex, bilateral agreements with third States who systematically violate human rights like Gadhafi’s Libya and several other measures aimed at preventing irregular migration. The efforts to identify refugees who are in need of protection have not been prioritized in the same manner. On the contrary, it seems to be intentionally neglected. In 2011 when the Arab world rose up against dictators to fight for democracy Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon opened their doors for refugees who fled their countries. The EU have imposed sanctions on Syria and contributed in the NATO force that bombed Libya. They were not however willing to implement independent investigations into the NATO bombings on their own initiative. The commitment to democracy and human rights was not so strong as to provide a safe haven for those who were persecuted in the Arab world either. Quite the opposite, the EU has used the ‘Arab spring’ as an excuse to further strengthen its border control. Europe has quite blatantly been pushing back migrants at sea or other external borders, knowing that they would be left to themselves at the hand of ruthless dictators, instead of identifying who had needs for protection and protecting their human dignity. More than 1.000 died at sea. Still, the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012.

The EU internally is faced with a myriad of problems due to the lack of solidarity between its Member States, who let us face it, are members primarily out of self-interest. Greece and Italy have not been managing their economies properly and many have not been willing to pay taxes and contribute sufficiently as is required in the EU. When the economic crisis hit in 2008, this became more evident. The Germans and the Finnish especially have shown an equal lack of solidarity by strengthening the demand to impose austerity measures in any country considering asking for a bail-out. These cuts to the economies in the PIIGS countries have resulted in violations to their citizen’s economic and social rights. We now see the Red Cross and UNHCR among others strengthen their efforts on European soil. The situation is so dire that political parties who want to opt-out of the EU have gained considerable strength. So have many fascist parties who have entered several European parties, as they did during the crisis in the 1930’s. Awarding the EU, who stand for 30% of the world’s export of arms, with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 is so mistimed that it deprives the Nobel Committee of its credibility. The Committee will always cause controversy with its award, but the Obama and EU award seems to have a political agenda that rightly raises the question of the Committee’s capacity, independence and accountability. A new solution should be found with a composition of members from the voluntary/charity/think tank sector rather than the political sector.

The Future of Mexico’s Militarized Public Security Approach

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:56:00 -0400

Public Security is considered Mexico’s main priority, but its government’s ability to provide it is questioned as a consequence of the mismanaged and militarized ‘war on drugs’. In the next few months, two changes, one political and one judicial, could provide a shift in the current panorama of public security; namely the appointment of the ‘Partido Revolucionario Institucional’s’ (PRI) Enrique Peña Nieto (EPN) as President and secondly, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation’s (SCJN) possible establishment jurisprudence regarding the extent of jurisdiction of the Republic’s military tribunal’s. Unfortunately, things could remain exactly the same or worse. On the 1^st of July Mexicans went to the polls to elect their new president. The contested winner of these elections is EPN. His appointment is however not straight forward, as very serious allegations have been pushed forward in the legal system, primarily by rival candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of the Partido Revolucionario Democrático (PRD) who is accusing PRI not only of buying votes, but also of violating electoral laws by underreporting and overspending on publicity. Furthermore, the public mobilization by the student movement ‘YoSoy#132’ against EPN, in addition to the Guardian releasing documents revealing that Televisa has been giving EPN favourable coverage in the campaign, has raised questions regarding his legitimacy. The PRI leader has not been able to convince the constituents that he is stepping away from his party’s old ways. In the middle of the ‘war on drugs’ where approximately 50-60.000 people have been killed and somewhere between 3-10.000 people have disappeared, many doubt what EPN will offer in order to achieve security, justice and respect for human rights in Mexico. Dealing with impunity is the key to success. A determination by the SCJN stating that human rights abuses by the military should be moved away from military tribunals to the civilian judicial system would be an important step.

Millennium of Reform in Mexico

The year 2000 was a turning-point in Mexican history. Vicente Fox and his ‘Partido de Acción Nacional’ (PAN) defeated PRI who had ruled the nation for approximately 70 years under what was characterized as ‘the perfect dictatorship’. Previously, Mexico was, at a federal level, a de facto one-party system, as no party was able to compete with the authoritarian clientelism PRI instated. However PAN managed to win, promising respect for human rights and to tackle corruption. Positive signs such as the ratifications of human rights treaties and a strong public commitment to this gave reasons for optimism, despite little changing on the ground.

Six years later Fox’s successor, Felipe Calderón, was elected in a massively disputed election. AMLO who was considered to have lost the election never recognised Calderón as the legitimate president and many shared his view. Calderón declared a war on drugs and the cartels which saw the beginning of an excruciating conflict that destabilized the ‘acceptable status quo’ that had existed between the cartels and the government. As the various police forces were considered to be imbued in corruption and therefore unequipped to tackle the cartels, Calderón sent the military to confront the drug trafficking cartels who the President considered the number one threat to peace, security and justice in Mexico. Accusations of human rights violations on the military’s behalf quickly grew but have been handled by military tribunals, which have been accused of impartiality and inefficiency as they have been unwilling to effectively prosecute human rights violators from the military.

War on Drugs

The war on drugs has caused an unprecedented public security crisis. As a consequence to the military presence around the country, conflict levels between cartels have increased. Particularly gruesome murders have been become widespread and so have enforced disappearances and the use of torture. Accusations of human rights violations by the military and public officials have increased sharply. The line between crimes committed by the cartels and gangs has been blurred with those committed by the military and police. This comes as a consequence of years of neglect by authorities when it comes to investigating human rights abuses.

TV-Spot Campaigning Permitted Superficiality

In an open letter, Amnesty International (AI), asked the presidential candidates about their commitments to human rights. The candidates’ responses were criticized by the human rights organization, who claimed these were vague and insufficient. The movement’s criticism included the omission of depth-analysis and detailed proposals providing an end to impunity for public officials involved in human rights violations, tackling forced disappearances, ending the use of ‘arraigo’ (preventive detention), and prosecution of crimes committed in ‘the dirty war’ in the 1960’s through -80’s. The Mexican Institute of Human Rights (IMDH) also launched three reports analysing the public security input the candidates gave during the election campaign. It criticized the candidates for repeating superficial ideas, something which was encouraged by the TV-spot format of the Mexican media during the election campaign. This occasioned the omission of serious and profound debates containing precise proposals.

In spite of having lost approximately 50-60.000 of its citizens, many more having disappeared and a horrifying amount of them having suffered human rights violations, the candidates’ approach to the victims and their families has been shallow. However it is hard to believe that EPN, as President, would to more for these victims than he did as governor in the State of Mexico, where he was responsible for serious human rights violations after the protests in San Salvador Atenco. No reparations have been awarded for the 26 women who claimed to have been sexually abused and/or raped. He neglected to end impunity for those who committed violence against women, which has been extremely high in this state. None of the candidates made any specific proposals about how to end impunity for feminicides, forced disappearance, or human rights violations against indigenous groups. AMLO was the only candidate who specifically mentioned the need to create a database to identify victims of assassinations, which is especially relevant for migrants and their families, considering the dangers they are exposed to in Mexico. Specific proposals of how the law for protection of human rights defenders and journalists would be complied with effectively did not seem to be a priority during the campaign. Nor did the candidates explain how Mexico would comply with the sentences by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) or implement recommendations made by diverse United Nations Special Rapporteur’s or NGO’s. One important sentence by the IACtHR in this respect stems from 2009, where it in Radilla Pacheco vs. Mexico held that where civilians’ human rights were violated military courts could not claim jurisdiction. It is this sentence the SCJN based its resolution on last year.

All the candidates seemed somewhat ignorant to the 2008 penal reform that will introduce oral prosecution and courts in Mexico. Their proposals regarding the judicial sector were superficial and unrealistic. For the most part they omitted important explanations as to how they would make reforms or changes. Proposals from EPN and Josefina Vázquez Mota (JVM) of PAN proposed increasing the Federal Police force in an unrealistic manner. All the candidates wanted to maintain the military in the front line against the cartels. AMLO proposed to replace this in the future by a newly created Federal Police, without giving further details. EPN proposes to make a military-trained police force under civilian command by the Federal Police. Questions naturally arise as to how these will be better than the military or the current Federal Police. This question gains strength and relevance as EPN hired former head of the Colombian National Police, General Oscar Adolfo Naranjo Trujillo, who is suspected of being involved in serious human rights violations in Colombia. None of the three major contenders were in favour of legalizing drugs. Furthermore, the only one candidate committed to the removal of the use of ‘arraigo’ was AMLO.

One positive with regards to AI’s letter however was the public commitment from EPN and AMLO to support recent human rights reform and to respect the decision by the SCJN, who stated that Mexico must adhere to decisions by the IACtHR demanding that Mexico give civilian courts jurisdiction to process cases of human rights violations against civilians committed by the military. A Federal Judge similarly ruled in the case of Bonfilio Rubio Villegas, an indigenous man killed by the military, that civilian courts should have jurisdiction over human rights violations committed by the military against civilians. This is what the military and ministry of interior have appealed (despite President Calderón having made a similar commitment to that of EPN and AMLO) which is why the SCJN are discussing it now. The SCJN did issue a resolution in line with the former one it issued, providing civilian courts with jurisdiction in the case (38/2012) of Coronel Arias Agredano, accused of orchestrating the arbitrary detention, torture, assassination and clandestine burial of Jethro Sanchez in 2011. According to the Mexican Commission of Defence and Human Rights Promotion (CMPDPH) stated this provides the SCJN the criteria to resolve the total 30 cases dealing with the military court jurisdictions and establish jurisprudence.

Mexico’s legislators voted for a large human rights reform in 2011 that reinforced a constitutional recognition of international human rights treaties, in theory strengthening the human rights protection in the country. The future of democracy and human rights in Mexico also depends on the future candidates carrying out a deeper analysis and proposing detailed measures on how to solve the countries’ many and severe problems. Mexico’s new President however, does not seem to offer any concrete change, only slogans and a camera-friendly face. Nonetheless, he has committed himself to accepting and implementing the resolutions made by the SCJN and putting words in to practice. Unfortunately, he does not have the credibility to convince any of us that it will have a tangible effect on human rights.

Circumcision of boys - a parent’s right to decide?

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:03:00 -0400

The Norwegian Centre Party has caused uproar in religious communities by proposing to outlaw the circumcision of young boys, unless medically necessary. This has happened after a two week old boy died after circumcision in May of this year in a medical institution. Jenny Klinge, Justice Policy Spokeswoman for the party, argues the prohibition on the following; 1) a comparison with female genital mutilation (FGM – circumcision of girls), and she claims approximately 100 boys die each year in the U.S. as a consequence, 2) she sees it as a ‘religious marker’ and, 3) she does not see it as a religious freedom matter since the boys cannot decide for themselves. I will argue that there is a good cause to discuss a prohibition, but not on the premises for the debate set by Centre Party. The legal analysis behind circumcision does deal with profound human rights issues such as religious freedom, discrimination of minorities and the parent’s right to decide for their children. Such a proposal must also consider health aspects and questions related to practical social solutions.

Circumcision

WHO estimates that 30% of the world’s male population is circumcised. Its practice mostly depends on religious belonging and/or culture. Jews have practiced circumcision for over 2000 years. They claim it was a commandment given to Abraham by God in the Torah and is considered a religious obligation for all Jewish men. Some estimates say 99% of all Jewish men are circumcised. A large majority of Muslims also circumcise boys, but it is not mandated by the Holy Quran. It was a pre-Islamic practice in Arabia, and Muslims consider this a ‘Sunnah’ (Prophet’s tradition) since Muhammad was circumcised. Several other cultures from Australia to Africa also practice it. Prohibiting circumcision will affect the cultural practices of these communities. They will resent it. It will be a measure that will affect them and not the religious practices of other religious groups.

Comparison with FGM

First I would like to distance the discussion from a comparison with FGM. Although the Centre Party are concerned about boys having a part of a healthy organ cut off from their body, the intervention is minor. It does not compare to FGM which is a much more serious intervention, where parts of or the entire external female genitalia is removed. This typically means that the clitoris is removed, in some cases together with the outer and/or inner labia and even tightening the vagina. It has a variety of negative health effects, especially due to the manner in which it is conducted. Furthermore it prevents these women from enjoying their sex lives as it makes it a very painful experience. This does not occur to boys who are circumcised. If argued on this premises, the discussion goes off track. Nonetheless, they are right in that it is, in most cases, an unnecessary and irreversible intervention into a healthy organ of a child which cannot protect itself or choose whether or not he wishes to go through with it, as well as inflicting a certain risk on the child.

Health

There are health arguments in favour of circumcision. These claim that it reduces the risk of contracting HIV and that urinary tract infections are less common with circumcised men. Other experts claim that most of the pro-arguments have been disproven, contradicted or are too insignificant to justify the procedure. There isn’t a single medical association in the world that recommends the procedure.

Religious freedom

At the heart of the debate lies the question of religious freedom and the child’s best interest. One of the most important international human rights instruments gives parents and legal guardians considerable rights to decide for their children when it comes to moral and religious education. It does however not touch upon the aspect of affecting the child’s body.

Art.18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states;

‘1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

…

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.’

It is clearly a matter of freedom of religion. Klinge argues that it is not, since ‘such freedom must involve being able to choose for themselves’. However, as we can see from the ICCPR Art.18(4), parents and legal guardians have the right ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their religion. This could provide an argument for parents who wish to circumcise their children, saying that it is part of their religious education, considering the religious mandate for it. FGM on the other hand is not commanded for by any religion.

The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child states the following in relation to religious rights in Art 14(2);

‘States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.’

If we are to discuss children’s right to choose freely then we must also prohibit baptisms and similar rituals and the wearing of religious clothing as well, albeit these do not intervene on the child’s physique. In none of these cases do children have a right to make an informed and free choice with respect to religion. Although I would accept that children should be allowed to think and choose religion freely, that principle would have to apply to all religions.

Practical social solutions

There is also the issue of offering a solid solution that protects individuals and their rights. Another problem with regards to the prohibition proposal is the practical aspect of it. Prohibitions tend to move whatever is being forbidden into the illegal sphere where it occurs under less predictable, unregulated and more dangerous circumstances. This happens with prostitution, drug abuse, alcohol prohibitions, etc. Would prohibition move circumcision into a clandestine environment where it was executed in a less sterile environment, by non-professionals, making it more dangerous? Considering the strong convictions about circumcision that exists, particularly in the Jewish and Muslim communities, is this improbable? Would it not make it a bigger problem instead of protecting young boys?

The reason alcohol prohibition did not work in the U.S. was that the black market was flooded by it. Instead of eliminating alcohol consumption, it was bought on the black market, without people really knowing what kind of liquid it consisted of, therefore it became more dangerous. The Norwegian government has experimented with needle rooms and distributed clean needles in order to provide a safer environment for consumption of heavy narcotics, without legalizing it. Prostitution in the Netherlands has been legalized in order to provide a safer environment for those who sell sex, and their customers, in order to prevent the spread of STD’s and violence.

A pragmatic solution is needed. Circumcision of young boys must be scrutinized further by experts. Religious communities must be consulted, together with health and legal practitioners. The right equilibrium must be found. Rights must be balanced. Personally I believe we should educate our children about religion objectively without making them predisposed to believing anything, but obviously I’m an atheist. I see no argument for the circumcision of healthy boys who cannot decide for themselves, but I do see problems with cutting of a piece of one’s healthy organ. On the other side I see the problems related to parent’s recognized right to educate their children from their beliefs, but the best interest of the child does come first. It seems Norway does not want to be the first country in the world to introduce prohibition, and will instead offer it at hospitals, perhaps for free, although both the doctors’ and nurses’ associations wanted to eliminate the practice.

Norway Must Invest With Human Rights in Mind

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:30:00 -0400

When you are interested in human rights related matters, it is difficult to see the world as anything but grim. It is even more challenging to keep any kind of faith in politicians’ manifestations of genuinely good intentions. Therefore it is difficult to give appraisal to states that have a decent human rights record. One of the states that deserves appraisal for their human rights efforts, is Norway. The former Viking nation, has developed a strong political identity, which has been influenced by some key historical events; 1) by the gradual secession from Denmark and Sweden, 2) the agricultural sector’s fundamental role in campaigning for democracy and, 3) having suffered the rule of the world’s worst regime ever, that of Nazi Germany. It is not however all rose-read. There are many human rights aspects that must be addressed better, especially when it comes to the country’s investments.

Credit when due

Partly in consequence to some of the events mentioned above, Norway developed a plural political party system based on proportional representation. Currently, seven parties are represented in Parliament with genuine influence. Much tribute must be paid the ‘Arbeiderpartiet’ (Labour Party), who have been the chosen government for most of the post-war history, and currently govern together with the socialist-left and centre-party (agriculture). They created, assisted by the much needed U.S. provided Marshall Help, a strong welfare state with universal coverage. It is characterized by high but efficiently distributed taxes, strong labour unions and a highly competitive private sector. The pluralist political system, which the British fear so much because it can create a ‘hung parliament’, requires negotiation and compromise. This has not led to indecision as advocates of a two-party system might claim, but has rather helped Norway achieve a great deal of equality and a representative democracy. The discovery and relatively efficient management of the oil resources (which only provides approximately 4% of the GDP - most of it is saved for future generations), has also been another important factor in helping Norway achieve what the UN development index evaluates as one of the world’s highest living standards.

Internationally, Norway, as a small nation, has an interest in developing a strong UN. The famous General Assembly room, a Norwegian donation, has therefore been the place where Norway wants to situate world governance. It is of course not interested in creating a power nucleus in the un-mandated G8 or G20. The small nation is one of the main contributors to the UN both when it comes to economic, technical and human resources. It has been an important third-party mediator in conflicts such as Sri Lanka, Israel-Palestine, Guatemala, Colombia, and elsewhere. Most of the human rights instruments have been signed, ratified and adhered to. In general, Norwegian politicians seem to have genuinely good intentions and a decent capacity to handle internal policy issues to a reasonable standard and also affect international concerns positively.

Economy First

Norway is nonetheless governed through very rational principles of self-interest. A uniquely solid economy has allowed the country to stay out of the EU. Although the country contributes more to the EU than many of its members, many of its citizens dread the ‘overrule’ of foreign governments. This is viewed as a little strange as they already accept and incorporate all EU legislation through the EEA treaty. However the belief in independence from foreign rule has a historical reasoning given the exploitation from Denmark and Sweden. Furthermore, there is a democratic problem for small nations in the EU as the strength of a Member State’s vote is determined by the number of citizens, which is unbeneficial to Norway. Finally, there is also the agriculture sector’s fear for their future as they at large are not internationally competitive, rely on huge subsidies, and have a historical importance for which they gather a lot of sympathy.

The ‘economic rationality’ has a more dreadful side too. There was much hysteria around the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s 2010 award to Liu Xiaobo, since China was unwilling to assume that the committee is independent from the Norwegian government and they decided to freeze its relationship with Norway. This display of integrity was not done by the Norwegian government however. In fact, the Norwegian executive branch will do business as usual with some of the cruellest governments, independent of which parties hold the relevant seat.

While the human rights situation has critically deteriorated in Belarus, leading the EU to impose and widen sanctions against Europe’s last dictatorship, Norway embarked on negotiations into a free trade treaty with the EFTA countries, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. It has allowed Russia to bully it into doing this without ever raising the human rights agenda. The interpretation is unequivocal; utilizing the death penalty, violently striking down peaceful protesters, restricting the right to fair trials and/or torturing its citizens, as Belarus does, are not crimes so grave that you will be excluded from the benefits of trade with Norway.

Aid to Ethiopia

Similarly, Norway has invested much of its development aid in the Ethiopian government, ignoring Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) recommendations to cut aid to the country. The organization’s reason for this recommendation is of course that it is run by an autocracy, that does not have its citizen’s interest at heart, severely restricts freedom of the press, uses anti-terror legislation to abuse human rights activists and displaces its own people for the gain of foreign companies. In spite of this, Norway increased aid and stretched cooperation with Ethiopia to include a return-agreement for rejected asylum seekers. Currently there are hundreds (many of them children) of Ethiopians in Norway in risk of being returned to Ethiopia. This is probably in violation of the principle of non-refoulment, which prohibits the return of any person that is in risk of torture, ill-treatment or other severe human rights violations. Each return provides a cash amount, which is intended to benefit the migrant. Instead of being managed by an independent organization, this cash is being handed directly to the Ethiopian government who will ‘make sure the money is spent right’. Former minister of development, Erik Solheim, called Ethiopia an African success story. This was based on some advances in the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), an ambitious climate plan which Norway highly appreciates, and its possibly positive role in peace brokering between the Sudans and in Somalia.

Solheim shrugged at HRW’s recommendations, choosing rather to rely on less independent reports produced by government cooperatives. It is clear that Norway should instead focus its aid on independent organizations operating in Ethiopia. These are however suffering from restrictions imposed on them by the mentioned anti-terror legislation. Norway must stand firm and use the aid as pressure for the elimination of such legislation and allow the operation of NGO’s in the country. It is important that Norway do not try to glorify the situation in Ethiopia either, it must be frank about its investments and intentions.

Genuinely selective

Norway is also very cautious of who it criticises. One can find many press statements from the Foreign Relations Ministry criticising Iran for the use of the Death Penalty, but it is more difficult to find such statements regarding the U.S., India or China. These are of course all countries which Norway wants to trade with. They have nothing to lose when criticising Iran. With Belarus it is clear that Russia’s demand to include its neighbour in the free trade agreement was sufficient political leverage for Norway not to take a stand. Norwegian government officials do not deny the gravity of the situation in Belarus, but they take rather white-eyed approach and hope that more investments will lead to a more open society. Likewise, Norway has put a lot of pride in its well-intended aid to Ethiopia. However, like much of the international development aid, especially that which goes through governments, is not very well monitored. In some cases, it even has adverse consequences. Norway should be very clear about its requirements regarding human rights when dealing with the Ethiopian government. Silent advocacy, which has been applied with China, must only be used when it is the most effective solution.

Arms Trade

Finally, weapons trade is another element which tarnishes Norway’s image. It has for a long period been one of the largest producers of arms in the world. Last year this little nation of peace has however bought more arms and military equipment than any other country in Europe. It buys four times more arms, per citizen, than the U.S. Every country has a right to defend itself, but it is important that arms trade is done for defence purpose only. In July there is a conference for an arms trade treaty and Norway should reiterate its commitment to such a treaty that prohibits the arms trade to countries who use these arms to violate human rights. Instead it has approved the U.A.E. and Qatar as potential buyers. Norway does more than most nations with genuine good intentions. Nonetheless, every investment carries with it responsibilities Norway on some occasions selectively forgets.

China in Dereliction of Duty

Thu, 10 May 2012 14:32:00 -0400

Introduction

In some cases it is appropriate to use the expression ‘silence before the storm’ to describe the outbreak of conflicts. The prevailing circumstances prior to the outbreak of the Arab spring would perhaps fit that portrayal. This is however not a fitting description of the current state of affairs between the two Sudans, and there are dangers of a storm coming. All the warning signs have been illuminated and reported on in the media. It has happened before. NGO’s have campaigned on this issue for a long time. The patterns are repetitive. Conflict lines that were pre-existent to the separation of these two States such as benefits from oil revenues, and ethnical, religious and regional discrimination and persecution, have been exacerbated by the secession of the South. Following the separation a fair and definite solution must be found to the unresolved border in the Abyei region. Attached to that particular problem are the rights of minorities and migratory issues between the two, in addition to accountability for past crimes. Key to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as to help spin the wheels of development is not only the willingness to negotiate of the two parties, but also the role of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and especially China.

Modern Sudanese History

The areas encompassing North and South Sudan have been disputed for a long time. The colonial powers struggled for its control and the British conquered. They governed Sudan, in practice through Egypt, in what consisted of two different administrative duties; the majoritarian Muslim North and the predominantly Christian South. This enhanced the differences between the citizens, creating a greater divide for reasons relating to religion, ethnicity, access to resources and regionalization, reminiscent of how Belgium enhanced the (much less clear) difference between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Sudan achieved independence in 1956, but from 1955 suffered a seventeen year long Civil War, where southerners claimed more regional autonomy. In 1971 the South Sudanese Liberation Movement (SSLM) was created, as the first unified command demanding South Sudanese secession.

From 1972 to 1983 Sudan enjoyed nine years of relative peace, until the Second Sudanese Civil War broke out. Nonetheless, discrimination had continued. Accusations claiming that the oil (75% of which is located in the South) was more beneficial to the North continued. Land was also taken from farmers and given to government officials. There was in other words, widespread discrimination from those holding power. In 1983 the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLM) was founded. After initially demanding a ‘United Sudan’ they also campaigned for southern secession. Omar al-Bashir and his National Islamic Front (NIF), fronted by the National Congress Party (NCP), then executed a Coup d’état in 1989, effectively instating him as a dictator that would create an Islamic State, governed by Sharia laws, and strongly repress his opponents (some might remember that Osama Bin-Laden started his terrorist career here). The Civil War continued until 2005 when a peace agreement was signed, which allowed for South Sudan to hold a referendum regarding its independence. In 2011 South Sudan seceded from the North as a result of this referendum. It is now governed by Sudan’s People’s Liberation Army’s (SPLA) Salva Kir, a former soldier.

In blatant dispute with Aristotle’s six forms of government, I dare say that the nature of any dictatorship is tyranny. Omar al-Bashir certainly seems to try and underline such a point, as his repression is not only felt by the ‘Christian South’, but also by the Fur, Zaghawa and the Masalit tribes of Darfur in western Sudan who are Muslims too, but not Arabs. Since 2003 the tyrannical regime of al-Bashir has been committing genocide against these populations utilizing not only aerial bombardment by its military, but also the Janjaweed militias who ride in to the villages after attacks to rob, destroy, rape and kill the inhabitants, their only salary being total impunity. Militia responses from this region have been carried out primarily by the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), who are far from innocent victims. The atrocities committed under the Darfur conflict has led the International Criminal Court (ICC) to emit arrest warrants for genocide (after a historical referral from the UNSC), crimes against humanity and/or war crimes against Omar al-Bashir (President), Ahmad Harun (held different Ministerial posts) and Ali Kushyab (leader of the Janjaweed). Three individuals representing Darfur militias are also under investigation from the ICC.

The Role of the International Community

The people of the Sudans have been failed by their leaders who hold the primary responsibility for this situation, but also by the international community who hold clear mandates to intervene and remedy it. The African Union (AU) has never been able to provide any form of security on the continent, either because of lack of political power or willingness. Its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) never established a mandate to deal with internal disputes, which are far bigger problems than inter-State conflicts, an evident obstacle to solving the conflicts of the former Sudan. Similarly to the UN, and probably also as a response to its colonial history, the AU has deeply engrained the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal state affairs, which of course can be an obstacle to solving internal conflicts. Nevertheless the Union has expressed a commitment to promote and protect human and people’s rights, in addition to proclaiming in a constitutive act (not yet enforceable) to intervene in grave circumstances such as war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. They have however recognized that the primary responsibility lies with the UNSC.

The UNSC is the international organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has two primary methods of solving international conflicts; 1) pacific actions (act as intermediary, incite negotiation, refer legal disputes to the International Court of Justice, etc.) and, 2) enforcement actions (economic sanctions or military intervention). First of all, this organ has not lived up to that responsibility because its five permanent members, who have the right to veto, have other interests which rank higher than international peace and security. Second, the UNSC will also hide behind the excuse of non-interference and claiming that a conflict does not pose a threat to international peace and security.

In response to the Darfur conflict the AU first sent a few troops in 2004, and increased the number (insufficiently) in 2005. They were criticized for not being sufficiently funded, lacking personnel, equipment and expertise. These were handed responsibility for preventing an escalation of a conflict where hundreds of thousands were killed and millions had to flee their homes, in an area equivalent to the size of France. After intense campaigning from civil society, the UN agreed to send a much larger force that merged with the AU peacekeeping force, under the name UNAMID. This force has not however been able to maintain any peace, as there is no peace to maintain, and UNAMID has suffered casualties in 2012. There is a similar mission in South-Sudan (UNMISS) which consists of approximately 11.000 persons, half of which are of a civilian character and only a few thousand are actually ready for battle. Among its principal aims is to provide support for peace consolidation and thereby fostering longer-term state building and economic development. Such a force is destined to fail in maintaining international peace and security. This halfway attempt is proof of the UN’s commitment in the Sudan conflict.

China’s Turn to Act

The spark that ignited the recent skirmishes was caused by forces loyal to the South Sudanese government, who occupied the town of Heglig, officially controlled by Sudan and central to the control of north-flowing oil supplies. This prompted a response from al-Bashir’s government (aerial bombardment which they deny) and condemnation from the UN. Subsequently, South Sudanese forces have withdrawn (or perhaps they were forced out), and the situation is somewhat calmer, but tense.

When South Sudan seceded from the North, the latter risked losing approximately 75% of their potential oil revenue. The South on the other hand gets 98% of its revenue from oil production. The problem for them is that all the pipelines they need to export oil, goes through Sudan who charge what South Sudan considers an unfair amount. Therefore they have closed down oil production all together, which the North perceives as unreasonable. This inflexible stubbornness from both sides has catastrophic consequences on the entire population on both sides.

On the side-lines we have permanent UNSC member China, who has enormous investments in both countries and who together with Russia has armed Omar al-Bashir’s government despite an existing weapons embargo. What China also has is a deeply entrenched policy of non-interference in other states internal matters. This is one element to the continuous stalemates in the UNSC. Before the secession, China’s investment accounted for 50% of all foreign investment in Sudan. Until they shut down oil production, China had 5% of its oil supplied by South Sudan, who want and need help to build new pipelines and if China were to help them build that, it would provoke Sudan. China therefore must balance a thin line. There are proposals of an AU roadmap to peace, supported by the UN, who are also considering sanctions against both countries. This roadmap must address the rights of citizens on both sides as well as solve migratory issues (the border area is habited by both ‘northerners’ and ‘southerners’ who can end up on ‘the wrong side of the border’). China who has blatantly disregarded its responsibilities as permanent member of the UNSC sits with all the keys. It has the power to unblock the council. It has great interests in both countries and both countries depend on China like no other state in the world. Their influence is near omnipotent in this conflict. If China does not prove as a credible actor that assumes responsibility in this situation, war could erupt and lead to an even larger humanitarian tragedy. China will also lose resources they depend on. China can form part of a historical opportunity to find a permanent solution to the Sudanese conflict between North and South. It remains to see whether they are up to the task.

Lessons to Learn from Kony 2012

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:05:00 -0400

One week ago, the campaign group Invisible Children (IC) released the surprisingly controversial film ‘Kony 2012’. Just as I write this I notice that Microsoft Word 2010 auto-corrects the word ‘Kony’ as it does not recognize it, and I have to ‘add to dictionary’. I doubt that will happen on the next version of Word, as in one week 75 million people saw this video. ‘Everybody’ now knows who Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc (Kony 2012)

The Campaign’s Aim

The aim of the video and the IC campaign is threefold; 1) to raise awareness about what is happening to the civil population in Uganda, especially with regards to child-soldiers such as Jacob, 2) to make Joseph Kony famous and, 3) as a consequence of this fame, politicians will need to act in order to intervene and arrest Kony and bring him to the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the video we see how narrator Jason Russell, while in Uganda, promised Jacob that he would do everything he could to ‘stop’ Joseph Kony. To ‘stop’ Joseph Kony and the LRA is ‘the only purpose of the video’ Russell narrates.

Controversy

It is evident that IC have not been campaigning for long and do not have the same expertise that characterizes many NGO’s and think tanks who have been working on this issue for decades. I think that is one of the reasons they keep it simple and use their forte, which is video editing and passion. This is probably also why IC falsely bases the premise of the video on ‘the fact’ that nobody supposedly knows who Kony is. I do not however dispute that his fame has increased substantially through IC’s work.

The main problem is that the content of the video is oversimplified. What does it mean to ‘stop’ Kony? Why is the focus only on him and the LRA, instead of on all the perpetrators of human rights violations? Why does Russell put an expiration date on the movie?

Kony 2012 is inexact and lacks nuances. It has been characterized as simple and criticized for displaying a limited level of knowledge which it again perpetuates, which again is misleading people. Others condemn the video for being patronizing to Africans and displaying Jason Russell as sort of a super hero that represents an army of westerners that will save Africa. It has also been echoed that it induces ‘slactivism’, meaning that people will ‘like’ and watch the video on social networks, but will have no long-lasting commitment to the issue.

The inaccuracy is important because it not only displays a false reality, such as outdated images, but it deceptively offers an easy-fix to a very complex problem. It has been pointed out that in order to ‘stop’ Kony one might have to confront child soldiers, which could end in an undesired massacre. This is a fundamental issue which the video overlooks by oversimplifying the problem. When child soldiers are forced to become perpetrators of crimes against humanity, it raises ethical issues which this group is not prepared to handle adequately. A related controversial aspect of their demand for Kony’s arrest is the call for a combined U.S./Ugandan intervention. Many fear this would instead lead to an ‘Osama-style’ assassination rather than an arrest and sentencing at the ICC. Moreover this would feed into suspicious political agendas. Kony 2012 furthermore portrays the Ugandan government as a rather helpless agent in the pursuit of Joseph Kony. The facts more complicated. Not only should the Ugandan government have done more in their pursuit for the LRA, but they are also guilty of recruiting child soldiers in the past. IC do not sufficiently emphasize, in the video, that Northern Uganda is much more peaceful now than it has been previously and let us remember that the LRA left Uganda in 2006. In fact, the war in Uganda ended in 2005 and is now more of a regional problem in central Africa. The video further neglects to debate the issue of the amnesty laws for former LRA members, which there is quite a bit of support for in Uganda, considering that many of the perpetrators are after all children. Kony 2012 also contains another mistake, which is the claim that Kony has no support. Sudan, represented by another person sought by the ICC, President Omar al-Bashir, is seriously suspected of having supported the LRA to distract South-Sudan. Finally, the IC have been accused of spending most of the funds they have raised for this cause on salaries, travel expenses and video editing, instead of directly on the cause. This they have to account for themselves and audits would answer the question. Here is a link to IC’s breakdown of expenses (http://www.invisiblechildren.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/critiques.html).

What are the Proposed Solutions?

In the video, Chief Prosecutor for the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo calls for the world’s nations to show a serious intent to arrest Kony. That would be a solid beginning and a deterrent for all those military leaders who use child soldiers and commit human rights violations. UNICEF has spoken loudly about their support for the video and its ability to place the conflict on the agenda. They do however recall that this is not about one person or one place. There are after all 250.000 child soldiers in the world, all equally important to Jacob. Their Secretary General finally points out that you cannot just ‘stop’ Kony, but you have to ‘rehabilitate and prevent’ as well. It will require action from all of us. Amnesty International has called for the arrest of Joseph Kony to be carried out in accordance with human rights standards.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has supported the calls for Kony’s arrest but argues that the following must also be offered;

§ Increased protection for civilians to prevent retaliatory attacks by the LRA

§ A program to rescue children and adults captured by the LRA

§ Rehabilitation for LRA fighters and captives who escape

§ Enhanced communication and early warning systems so civilians can report attacks and rapid assistance can be deployed

§ Better demobilization efforts to help LRA fighters who want to surrender

§ Deployment of capable forces with adequate logistical and intelligence support to apprehend the LRA’s leaders

This shows a more complicated picture of what is required to ‘stop’ Joseph Kony. It also shows that the aim itself is not only to arrest Kony, but it is to create peace, respect for human rights and re-integrate former child soldiers. There are more nuances in the Ugandan and central African reality than meets the eye in Kony 2012. Solving this issue is not an easy-fix as one might think after watching the video.

In IC’s defense I believe that awareness-raising is a value in itself, but it is also an argument for IC to be more exact. Much of the criticism is spot-on and I have no doubt that IC will have learned a lot from this experience. The group has moreover accomplished important things, such as the establishment of a radio warning system to alert the presence of the guerilla forces. IC has drawn an unparalleled attention to this issue of Kony’s arrest, which is positive. However, I think the most important thing this video will bring with it is that more people will mobilize, perhaps also in more established organizations that have been working on this issue for decades. NGO’s will also have learned a lesson as this must be the first time in history a charity organization managed to capture the attention of 75 million people in a week. It is a campaigning lesson, although the formula remains unclear. Campaigners now need to up their game. It remains to be seen whether IC now can capitalize to have a real impact and longevity. Unfortunately I doubt it, as I think they have lost much credibility. Longevity also seems problematic when Jason Russell says this video expires at the end of the year. Like UNICEF has said, this does not end with the arrest of Joseph Kony. The commitment to prevent and rehabilitate child soldiers and prevent atrocities against civilians goes further. For this to become a reality, the focus must be broadened beyond Joseph Kony.

Take action!

http://www.facebook.com/invisiblechildren

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=6oJCLQPAJiJUG&b=6645049&aid=517367&msource=W1203EACPR1&tr=y&auid=10434958

Does Social Media Demonstrate that Internet Access is a Human Right?

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:10:00 -0500

Social media has entered into the lives of most of us. It has changed the way we receive news, the forms in which we communicate with one another, the way we seek employment and the manner in which we manifest our opinions. Newspapers, radios, televisions, Xerox machines and faxes all did some of these things, but through the internet and social media especially, these tools have been assembled into inter-connected websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, MySpace, LinkedIn, blogs, etc. Much has been written about how access to these tools should be considered a human right, how they impact them and what underlying potential they have. This blog will look at what these tools represent, what their impacts are and analyze the claim that internet access is indeed a human right.

Tools for Democracy Movements

In 2009 protests broke out in Iran after the presidential elections. These were mostly instigated by supporters of Mousavi and Karroubi, the two candidates who opposed the sitting President Ahmadinejad, who many Iranians considered to have rigged the elections and manipulated the vote. The public outrage, following the unprecedented voter turnout, was channeled into unceasing demonstrations with millions of people that lasted for approximately six months. This was in large part made possible by the ability to mobilize the public through social media, by what to some extent were loosely organized protesters. This movement was among other things dubbed the ‘Twitter Revolution’. This label was perhaps set too soon as there was no revolution due to the regime’s iron-fist response which finally managed to brutalize the protesters into silence. Similar outrage was ignited in 2011 after Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself on fire and sparked the revolutions in North-Africa and demands for democracy throughout the Arab world, Iran and even China. Again social media was an essential instrument for demonstrators in order to not only assemble the public and unify them, but also through the use of cameras on cell-phone devices with internet access, they were able to document government abuses that were sent to journalists. The press publicized the images which have resulted in increased international support. This again pressured western leaders to invade the Gadhafi regime in Libya and international leaders will hopefully be shamed into acting in Syria as well. Politicians around the world have unanimously praised protesters ability to mobilize, demand that their rights be respected and in some cases chase dictators out of their country. Social media continues to be a vital tool in unrelenting protests throughout the globe.

Tools of Oppressors

The liberation of Eastern-Europe was much aided in its time by Xerox and fax machines that allowed those who fought for democracy and human rights to distribute information. Democracy movements could not use televisions (although this technology was democratized by the introduction of small video cameras) as these broadcasting agencies were owned and/or controlled by the very governments responsible for their oppression. Faxes and Xerox machines, like social media today, allowed for individuals to distribute information rather effectively. Unfortunately, these tools and other media are not immune to the use of oppressive dictators, criminal groups or terrorists. Hitler and Goebbels used every media tool available to spread mind-washing propaganda. During the Rwandan genocide Hutu extremists took over radio stations to spread hate messages and incite mass killings of Tutsis. Likewise we have seen Al-Qaeda distribute information both through television and online.

This is very much the perspective David Cameron wanted to twist to his advantage during the London riots in 2011. I will not begin a discussion on the legitimacy of the protests there, but I would rather bring attention to the similarities in the discourse used by the UK Prime Minister and authoritarian leaders. In the aftermath of the riots in London, Cameron expressed a desire to ban people from using social media, justifying this by claiming it would only be applicable to those who encouraged criminality via these instruments. This is the same invalid excuse the Chinese and the Saudi-Arabian governments use to censor websites with the collaboration of search engines such as Google and Yahoo (Google has now however taken steps in the right direction by challenging the Chinese governments hacking of activists’ Gmail accounts in China). Also Twitter has joined this club by stating they will start to remove content ‘in some countries’. These authoritarians censor what they consider to be sensitive or illegal material online, often with the excuse that it threatens national security or stability. Like David Cameron, these autocrats wish to ban people from using certain websites (be censoring social media also), only on a much larger scale. The Prime Minister has reason to direct the executive branch towards investigating criminal activities and proposing to change the law to allow the police to carry out this job as effectively as possible. There is however, no reason for banning people from using what is now a basic tool of communication, like a telephone is. Even convicted felons have the right to a use telephones and computers.

Is Access to Internet a Human Right?

This raises the question; is access to the Internet a human right? In light of the uprisings in the Arab world, the United Nations Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue went so far as to claim that the Internet had ‘become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights’. Parliaments and courts in countries like France and Estonia have gone even further and stated that access to internet IS a human right. So what is really a human right? According to one author (Vinton G. Cerf), it is ‘what humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience’. This is a definition it is easy to agree with, but I would extend and claim that human rights are something that allows humans to be free and live with dignity also. It could be somewhat far-fetched to state that internet access is a human right at the current moment. Nonetheless, in today’s society where almost innumerous amounts of professions, educations and democracy movements rely on internet access to be effective, how can we deny that it should be a universal human right?

I find it difficult to deny that the internet, and social media as part of it, is a fundamental tool for human development (which IS a human right) in today’s society. The trend of expansive internet usage is irreversible and we are absolutely dependent on this instrument to realize our potential. Some see internet access as an enabler, not an end in itself. Perhaps, but making such a distinction serves no purpose. Students who do not have internet access in current developed educational systems will experience discrimination as they will not be able to achieve the same results as those who do have such access. Businesses without internet access will be disadvantaged to say the least. Democracy movements cannot go back to the days of fax and Xerox machines. So even if these tools can be used to persecute demonstrators and to spread hate messages, they have become necessities to achieve freedom and dignity. They are means to an end, yes, but so is the tongue which we use to express ourselves. Both are necessary.

The Mexican Human Rights’ Panorama: Back to the Future

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:07:00 -0500

The Mexican Presidential elections are going to be held in July 2012 and it will decide which person will govern Mexico for the next six years. The current human rights situation is a fragmented disaster that the Mexican Government has been uninterested in addressing effectively. Human Rights and indigenous organizations, together with journalists are being threatened and killed by what are always unidentified perpetrators. The criminal justice system is a sham and authorities are losing control over its territory. This is creating an anarchic situation where the respect for human rights is sacrificed in what is a meagre attempt to establish security. This is a false dichotomy presented by the government where you either chose human rights or security. The two are inherently linked but I doubt that the major Presidential candidates see it that way, as at least two of them represent the established power structures in the country and treat claims to respect human rights as a threat.

On December 2^nd 2011, Mexican activist and founder of the organization ‘Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa’ (May Our Daughters Return Home) was shot five times after leaving work in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Miraculously she survived the attack, which authorities tried to inexcusably blame on an isolated carjacking. This effort by the authorities to disassociate the attack with Mrs Andrade’s activism was evidently proven wrong as the attackers through anonymous phone calls continued to threaten hospital staff if they treated her. The authorities’ attempt to view the attack as an isolated incident stands in stark contrast to the responsibilities to protect citizens which they are under considering the recurrent death threats Mrs Andrade had received prior to the shooting. In light of the assassination attempt and calls for protection echoed by several NGO’s she was moved to Mexico City where her whereabouts was supposedly only known to federal and state officials. The quality of protection offered by these officials was regrettably exposed to the world on February 3^rd when an unidentified man attacked Mrs Andrade with a knife at her house in Coyoacán, Mexico City. Fortunately, Mrs Andrade managed what Mexican officials did not, which is to heroically protect herself from the armed man. Several theories now linger in the air. Have Mexican authorities merely slipped in their effort to protect Mrs Andrade or are they, as many will suggest, actively pursuing and persecuting human rights defenders because they somehow threaten their interests? These questions are relevant to various emblematic human rights violations carried out in Mexico.

In 1993 the murder rate of women in the city of Ciudad Juárez increased disproportionately. The murders all have similarly vicious characteristics such as rape, beatings, strangulation and stabbings. Even more disturbing was the fact that much of the violence was directed at parts of the female physique that indicate specific gender-violence. In other words, the violence these women are exposed to is motivated by the fact that they are women/girls. The victims are almost exclusively young and poor, who work at ‘maquiladoras’ (assembly plants that produces exportable materials to the U.S. mostly). It is a chilling consideration that they target women who will not be able to challenge the legal system if they survive. This is how Ciudad Juárez was made famous to the world. Instead of benefitting from what economic growth and more job opportunities brought, Ciudad Juárez turned into a city that grew so quickly it could not offer basic public services to its growing population. Many have migrated from the south to work (some to continue their journey further north) and are therefore even more exposed to the lack of security stemming from crime and the recently exploded drug-war. Women who have had a much larger possibility of getting employed in the border city have instead been raped and killed after leaving their jobs at the numerous maquiladoras. Among the hundreds, perhaps thousands of assassinated girls, was Lilia Alejandra, daughter of Norma Andrade. Her assassination, as most of the others remains in impunity. This is why Norma Andrade founded ‘Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa’, because she, like a terrifyingly large number of inconsolable mothers in this city, searches for justice for an assassinated daughter. Mrs Andrade now needs to leave Mexico due to the lack of protection offered to her by the Mexican federal government. This is what makes Norma Andrade expendable to Mexican authorities. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has sentenced Mexico for its human rights violations which stem from the lack of effective investigation and protection of women in its country. In the case known as ‘El Campo Algodonero’ (the cotton field case) Mexico received its sentence and Mexico had to raise a monument in tribute to these eight women who were assassinated in the cotton fields in 2001, an event which President Calderón did not find sufficiently important to attend.

This unfortunately does not end here. There is a broader issue at hand. Women continue to be murdered in Ciudad Juárez in very high numbers. Mexican authorities in fact seem either very uninterested in human rights if not outright hostile to the concept and those who protect them. This is a statement which stands in contrast to the image Mexican leaders give to the rest of the world by ratifying most human rights treaties and having created one of the most well-funded human rights commissions in the world. I am going to display some examples that will question whether there is any other answer than that which is; Mexican authorities in fact orchestrate many attacks on human rights defenders continuously.

The Mexican people have always been brave to come out and manifested themselves in order for authorities to respect their rights and demands. Often the responses from the authorities are massive crackdowns characterized by arbitrary arrests, excessive use of force, torture, sexual abuse and rapes, and extrajudicial killings. This was the case in the anti-globalization demonstrations in Guadalajara in 2004, the teacher’s demonstrations in Oaxaca in 2006 and the public manifestations against the eviction of street merchants in San Salvador Atenco the same year. The case of San Salvador is particularly interesting and important to remember as a very prominent politician held responsibilities which must not be forgotten. The Presidential candidate of the ‘Partido Revolucionario Institucional’ (PRI), Enrique Peña Nieto, who is more known for his good looks than his political programme, governed the ‘Estado de México’, the state where San Salvador Atenco is located. He was therefore responsible for the executive branch in the state, including state police who together with federal police carried out the crack-down. Peña Nieto is the favourite to win the 2012 elections in Mexico. He should instead of being honoured with the Presidency be brought to justice for these human rights violations. There is a slight chance of this happening as several of the 26 women who were tortured, abused sexually and/or raped in San Salvador Atenco have brought the case to the IACtHR. The Presidential candidate has evidently not placed human rights at the top of his agenda seeing that between 2005 and 2011 more than 900 women were assassinated in the state he governed and most of the cases ended in impunity. When this was called to his attention by the Federal Senate and the ‘National System for the Prevention, Attention, Sanction and Eradication of Violence Against Women’, he responded that it was part of a political campaign to damage his presidential aspirations.

Another example of the constant persecution of human rights defenders is that of the indigenous group called Me’phaa that come from the state of Guerrero. In 2002 Inés Fernández and Valentina Rosendo were raped by soldiers of the Mexican army (who are supposedly only to be tried under the military justice system). This case was taken to the IACtHR, who sentenced Mexico for its human rights violations to give reparations to the victims, reform its military justice system and make a full, thorough and impartial investigation of what happened. So far no one has been brought to justice for these crimes. In 2008, the Mexican government arrested Raul Hernández and four of his colleagues from the OPIM (a group formed to promote the rights of its indigenous group Me’phaa) and falsely accused them of murder. After relentless pressure from various human rights organization and the Me’phaa themselves, all five were released to great reluctance on behalf of the government. This is all part of a bigger picture of systematic marginalization and persecution of excluded and discriminated groups that are barely able to defend themselves. Fortunately they are receiving increased support nationally and internationally.

I cannot omit the mentioning of the drug-war in Mexico. What was already a bloody conflict characterized by particularly brutal violence, has escalated since 2006 when President Felipe Calderón took office (after an election that ‘Partido Revolucionario Democrático’ - PRD - candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador correctly disputed as rigged) and announced his war on the cartels. The problems are many; Calderón has not been able to eliminate a recurrent problem which is his own party’s (Partido Acción Nacional – PAN) members’ association with cartels, nor has the President been able to eradicate extensive corruption in the military or law enforcement and cartels are still able to recruit trained military as they offer better wages. Furthermore, Calderón has not been able or interested in holding public officials accountable for the numerous human rights violations they commit in the collective efforts to bring down the cartels. More 50.000 people have lost their lives in this war since 2006. Instead, Calderon has only managed to disturb the power balance between the cartels and throw gasoline on the fire. This has earned him public accusations that have been taken to the International Criminal Court’s head prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, who is considering whether or not to open an investigations against the President, members of his cabinet and cartel leader Joaquin ‘el Chapo’ Guzmán. There is a plausible scenario where Calderón will be sentenced for crimes against humanity in the future.

My predictions for the future respect and maintenance of human rights in Mexico for the next six years are far from positive. Women are still being assassinated around the country in terribly high numbers, while their rapists/assassins still walk the streets freely. The interest of Enrique Peña Nieto seems to be far from genuine. It seems as though Peña Nieto, who is where he is thanks to existing institutionalized power structures created by his party’s 70 yearlong rule of Mexico, will re-impose the light version of an oligarchy his party is known for. Perhaps the first ever Mexican female Presidential Josefina Vázquez Mota (PAN) could change perspectives and redirect efforts, but considering PAN’s contribution over the last twelve years to human rights, I seriously doubt it. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador does not seem to have a chance in these elections, but represents the only large party who has not been able govern Mexico and should perhaps be given an opportunity. Unfortunately, he seems to have spilled his chances on populist ways to delegitimize Felipe Calderón (although he had a legitimate claim to the Presidency). The prospects for the human rights situations in Mexico are catastrophic as it seems inevitable that Mexicans will elect a President whose political programme is largely unknown and will certainly not include effective measures to address human rights. In 2012, Mexico will invest 2.5 million pesos (approximately 150.000 Euros) to protect human rights defenders, but still Norma Andrade sees no other option but to seek refuge in another country as she is persecuted for exercising her human rights.

DIGGING FOR THE TRUTH

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:35:53 -0500

EMBARRASSING PARALLELS BETWEEN THE ARAB SPRING AND THE SPANISH TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY

On January 22nd of 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) presented their ‘World Report’ for 2012. Obviously, the report focused a great deal of attention on the ‘Arab spring’ (misbranded as the name is, seeing that the spring of 2011 has passed, but the public outrage and demand for respect for human rights has not). At the end of the presentation, Executive Director Kenneth Roth stated the following:

‘… the international community must help build the rule of law in this region, and that means opposing the impunity that encourages repression and atrocities. It’s all too tempting to sweep under the rug the atrocities of autocratic allies. That is often done in the name of ‘facilitating a transition’. We’re seeing this today in Yemen. The lesson we have learned though, particularly out of Yemen, is that when you send a signal, that there is no price to be paid for killing demonstrators, you basically give a license to kill. You send the signal that the government can kill as many demonstrators as it wants. If it succeeds in staying in power, it obviously won’t prosecute itself, but if it loses power, there will be no consequences to be borne. That is a terrible signal. It encourages violence, rather than promotes an end to violence. So in conclusion let me say that the uprisings and the revolutions of this year present an enormous opportunity for the human rights cause. Yet, given the violent causes that continue to resist progress here, it’s wrong to simply leave to the Arab world, the task of facing the people with the guns. International help is needed and to date the international community, as I’ve outlined, has been much too equivocal and inconsistent in assisting the birth of democracies in this region. Ultimately, the international community has to decide what it stands for; does it value the rights and aspirations of the people of this region or does it prefer to side with the autocrats? We hope that it makes the right decision.’

This eloquently razor-sharp critique is applicable to more situations than those found in the Arab world in 2011-2012. The lessons to be learned could be used when considering any situation where there is a transition to democracy, because any state that is departing from the rule of a dictator or an autocracy will inevitably have to deal with the issue of accountability for the committed human rights violations. Some states do this thoroughly and effectively, as Germany has done with its vicious and equally efficient war criminals, while other countries avoid dealing with such accountability concerns, (supposedly) in order to maintain ‘stability’ and avoid war. In Spain, Judge Baltasar Garzón has been criminally indicted for prevarication and is currently appearing before the Spanish Supreme Court for allegedly violating the 1977 Spanish amnesty law after he decided to open investigations into crimes against humanity such as the forced disappearance of 114.226 people, committed between 1936 and 1951. These crimes were perpetrated during Spanish Civil War and the beginning of the dictatorship of General Franco.

The world’s largest human rights organization and Nobel Peace Prize winner Amnesty International claims that the amnesty law Garzón is accused of violating is in fact not intended to protect violators of human rights from the dictatorial regime, but is in fact meant to protect political prisoners detained by the Franco regime. The organization furthermore claim that Spain the law in any case would be null as international treaties compel Spain to investigate crimes against humanity, even if they were committed in the past, as international obligations override any conflicting national laws. This charge, which has been brought forward by two far-right groups which are all too shamefully called ‘Manos Limpias’ (Clean Hands) and ‘Libertad e Identidad’ (Liberty and Identity) has nonetheless been deemed admissible by the Spanish Supreme Court, even though public prosecutors have called for its dismissal.

In order to understand the reasons behind this legal process which can shut the door on the ‘Ley Histórica’ (Historic Laws) which deals with the human rights violations committed during the Spanish Civil War and during the dictatorship of Franco, we must examine Garzón’s background and especially the Spanish transition to democracy. Many parallels can be drawn to today’s situation in the Middle-East.

BALTASAR GARZÓN

This controversial figure, a former legislator in the Congress of Deputies for the Spanish Socialist Party PSOE, has, as a judge been one of the frontrunners in the application of universal jurisdiction, as well as many domestic cases. His role as judge is investigative, as when he is assigned a case by the court, Garzón is tasked with the recollection of evidence and evaluating whether the case should be brought to trial. He does not try the cases. In the late 1980’s he participated in the investigations of the GAL (Grupos Anti-terroristas de Liberación) case – Spanish death squads established by the socialist government to kill terrorists. In Spain he has furthermore been involved in high profiled cases which have ended with the conviction of Jesus Gil, former mayor of Marbella and owner of the football club Atlético Madrid, as well as a series of cases against Basque nationalist parties that were deemed too extreme. Internationally, Garzón has also been involved in many cases which have earned him international praise, especially by human rights organizations.

In the late 1990’s, Garzón became famous world-wide when he, in applying the principle of universal jurisdiction had former military dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, arrested in London. The principle of universal jurisdiction entails in crude shortness that some crimes are so serious that they can be tried anywhere, irrespective of the location where the crimes were committed. Garzón sought the extradition of Pinochet to Spain, but the British courts were dooped by the former tyrant and embarrassingly found him too frail to be sent to Spain and sent him across the world and back to Chile instead, after 18 months in house arrest in London. The judge was moreover involved in a similar case regarding crimes against humanity against former naval officer for the military junta in Argentina, Adolfo Scilingo which ended with a 640 year sentence. The ever so well-regarded judge, who has been offered an advisory role at the International Criminal Court, has in initiating investigations into the war crimes and crimes against humanity during Franco stepped on many toes. The reason is that like in Egypt’s current transition to democracy, Spain retained a large part of the state apparatus from the Franco era to govern the country as it turned into a democracy.

THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR AND FRANCO’S RISE TO POWER

A cruel civil war unleashed in Spain in 1936 when several military generals declared war on the democratically elected, republican government, with the support of far-right groups such as the Falangists. To oversimplify the war turned into a conflict between democratic, republican socialists and right-wingers led by military generals; the first group supported by the USSR and the second by the Germans and Italians, although it was never a real international conflict. There are no exact numbers on the amount of persons killed, but estimates range anywhere from a few hundred-thousand to 1.000.000. The end of the civil war was achieved after General Franco had acquired control over the nationalist forces and took over as dictator of a monarchic Spain, without a King. The subsequent take-over resulted in political persecution, limitations on freedom of speech and press, mass arrests of political opponents, prohibition of political parties, torture, extrajudicial executions and many other human rights violations. These violations were perhaps stronger than elsewhere in the regions of Catalonia and the Basque country. General Franco ruled, like many of his Latin-American and Arab counterparts, with an iron-fist until 1975 when he died. Before his death Franco had instructed that Juan Carlos I of Borbón would take over as monarch and Spain inevitably became a democracy.

TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY

This new era in Spanish history did not come about in a radical manner. The struggle for democracy has existed throughout Franco’s reign, but finally the decision resulting in democracy (i.e. the appointment of King Juan Carlos I) was made by a dictator and it was not implemented until his death. This cannot be compared to the end of Ben Ali’s, Mubarak’s or Gadhafi’s reign, as they were in chased out of their respective countries or killed. However, many of the challenges of a transition to democracy and dealing with the accountability for human rights violations committed under these dictatorships are similar.

When the rule of an autocracy or a dictator ends, the country will undoubtedly have many persons in positions of power who were put there for their support for the ruling party or person. It is also very likely that the country will have a large sector of its public servants entangled in the clientelism that defines many such regimes. Put in another way, many people benefit from the rules of these dictators or autocrats as long as they act supportive. When Spain entered into the democratic transition, the politicians and civil servants were very afraid of a new civil war and having to assume responsibility for their actions. They wanted to close the wounds and put a lid on history in order to ‘facilitate the transition’. King Juan Carlos I, who chose to act within the confines of Franco’s legal system and swear loyalty to the principles of Franco’s party ‘Movimiento Nacional’ (and decided to bury General Franco in ‘the valley of the fallen’ on top of many of his victims), chose Adolfo Suarez as prime minister. This was of course all done to avoid military conflict, a threat that was real, proved by 1981 coup d’état attempt. The King can, as he certainly has, take great credit in playing a large role in suppressing the coup attempt and supporting the democratic developments. Spain succeeded in bringing about a constitution and developing a democratic political system that progressed quickly. Nonetheless, there was not any process where the newfound democracy dealt with the atrocities committed under the Spanish Civil War or during Franco’s reign. This meant that a large group of the population who had suffered arrests, torture or the assassination or disappearance of loved ones would never achieve justice. Justice was sacrificed ‘to facilitate the transition’. That argument may have been valid in the immediate aftermath of Franco’s death given the political instability, but Spain’s democracy is now firmly established and should prove its commitment to human rights.

ACCOUNTABILITY – THE PROBLEMATIC HERITAGE

The trouble now of course is that many of Spain’s public servants, including highly positioned government officials, have a lot to lose and would possibly face prison sentences. To exemplify, Spain’s newly elected Partido Popular (PP) was in fact led and founded by the recently deceased Manuel Fraga Iribarne who was Minister of Information and Tourism under Franco and became Minister of Interior (one of the most important positions in the country) the year Franco died. Fraga, who groomed former Prime Minister José María Aznar, is infamous for his response to the Grimau case, as Minister of Information. Julián Grimau, one of the Communist Party leaders, was detained in 1962, tortured and thrown from the second floor of a building on the streets in central Madrid. Fortunately he survived. When questioned about this Fraga responded in brief that he had been treated with ‘care’, which is indicative of Fraga’s approach to human rights. In principle there are many more like Fraga in Spain. Many of them were public servants, especially in the military and police, and many of them have committed atrocities for which they might never be held accountable. The reason for avoiding dealing with this issue is to avoid opening old wounds, not the more probable reason of political embarrassment for so many members of PP. However, I am certain that any doctor would agree that if you have a wound which is infected, putting a band aid on it will not cure it. As you would expect, the pain of those who lost loved ones has not been cured. It cannot be cured until there is accountability and justice.

States that have carried out the transition from autocracy and dictatorships to democracies have carried out accountability processes, many of them with less democratic tradition and more economic instability than Spain. Germany has for decades dealt with the war crimes from the Second World War, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established to deal with the war crimes in the Balkans, a similar tribunal was established in Rwanda and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission offered a different alternative in South Africa. The United Nations has been helpful and necessary in this respect and the quality of these processes differ, but these are certainly more dignified attempts than Spain’s attempt to sweep this under the rug and their persecution of Garzón. In 2007, Congress in Spain passed the Historical Memory Law proposed by Zapatero. This bill would be a complete break-away with the persistence of tribute to General Franco by, among other things; 1) condemning his regime, 2) removing Francoist symbols from public spaces and buildings, 3) tracing, identifying and possibly exhuming the graves of victims of Francoist repression, whose corpses are still missing (as many are still being found in mass graves). Judge Garzón moreover proposes a judicial process where those responsible for these atrocities can be held accountable. This is what the proper rule of law in a democracy is all about. The wound will never heal if investigations into human rights violations can be legally persecuted in Spain.

A LICENSE TO KILL

Political leaders in Europe have been quick to praise the persistence of the Arab population who have been fighting for their rights (although they have been much clearer every time it became clear that a leader would no longer survive in his position). Spanish leaders have, as part of the EU, expressed their wish for Arab leaders to respect universal and undividable human rights. They have taken pride in Garzón’s work to hold leaders in Latin-America accountable for crimes against humanity, but there is some hypocrisy about not dealing with the past properly. Let us remember Kenneth Roth’s analysis which is if the lesson to be learned is that you can kill demonstrators without accountability, you are given a license to kill. By not dealing with the crimes against humanity committed under the Spanish Civil War and the posterior dictatorship, we are agreeing and saying that yes, Franco and his military regime had just that, a license to kill. Ultimately, Spain has to decide what is stands for; does it support the victims of human rights violations and human rights as a fundamental value or does it prefer to avoid political embarrassment and side with the criminals? Public manifestations on the streets of Madrid last weekend certainly indicate that the population sides with justice…

Photo

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:18:52 -0500