Posts Tagged ‘corporate accountability’
December 28, 2015
Though positive engagement with businesses should be considered a preferred option when it comes to promoting corporate respect for human rights, sometimes the open legal confrontation of human rights violators is the only way to make progress. This is when human rights defenders such as Angela Mudukuti, a lawyer running the International Criminal Justice Programme at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), are critically needed. The International Service of Human Rights (ISHR) published an interview with her on 27 November 2015.
She defends a holistic approach to justice, where corporate accountability should be sought whenever businesses are involved in violations, regardless of the sectors or human rights affected. And in cases of complicity in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, she says “corporate accountability is important to all the victims”.
Given the weighty consequences they face if their responsibility for such gross violations is revealed, Angela’s experience is that corporate entities are mostly reluctant to facilitate engagement with human rights defenders, making litigation procedures the only way to ensure transparent investigation and accountability. Yet, suing companies and especially major corporations for complicity in gross human rights violations can prove to be dangerous, even for the best-trained defenders. “We work regionally and so we often face regional and local threats. For example: infiltration into your information databases; other security threats which can be physical in nature… corporate entities … have the ‘muscle’ to intimidate you and they will seize any opportunity to do so…”
Angela and other members of the SALC team have also experienced personal threats, but she remains positive, seeing these challenges as an “indication that you are doing the right thing” and a part of the burden carried by most human rights defenders in the world. She also highlights that threats do not come only from corporate or government entities, but also from “individuals who disagree” with the work she is doing.
Other practical obstacles can impede SALC’s human rights work such as a lack of access to information to build proper advocacy, and resistance from legal administrative bodies. Yet, this does not prevent SALC from extending their litigation work into advocacy, which is jointly conducted with local organisations throughout Southern Africa: “The first thing is to decide if litigation is viable or if the same results can be achieved by other means. Secondly, should we decide to litigate we need to determine how we can structure the advocacy around it because raising awareness is very important.”
Many corporate entities involved in gross human rights violations have transnational activities for which the “ramifications transcend boarders”. This makes the work of corporate responsibility defenders even more challenging, and is one of the reasons why SALC has a regional focus. Angela says the regional nature of violations also demands that the international community “be united and prioritise business and human rights (…) in Southern Africa and in other parts of the developing world”.
The SALC is also looking to address the devastating environmental implications of various corporate projects.
Follow Angela on Twitter at @AngelaMudukuti.
Defender profile: Angela Mudukuti from Southern Africa Litigation Centre | ISHR
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Angela Mudukuti, Business and human rights, corporate accountability, environmental issues, harassment, ISHR, litigation, profiles, southern africa, Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), woman human rights defender
November 23, 2015
In the series Human Rights Defender Profiles [ISHR] this time: Muhammad Darisman, from West Java, Indonesia:
In the context of breakneck pace of economic development Muhammad Dairyman stands out. He currently partners with U.S.-based Worker Rights Consortium to monitor and improve working conditions in garment factories, but he is also the founder, since 2009, of a local NGO that raises awareness of occupational disease and victim’s rights. He has led campaigns to highlight the ongoing (and legal) use of asbestos in Indonesia and across the Asian region, and to raise awareness about the negative health impacts on workers and communities. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Business and human rights, corporate accountability, environmental issues, health, Human Rights Defenders, Indonesia, Java, labour rights, land rights, Muhammad Darisman, profiles, Trade union
November 19, 2015
Here two contrasting statements on the theme of business and human rights. One describes the hesitation of the World Bank to apply human rights criteria and even use the word human rights (posted in the Huffington post of 18 November 2015 by Nezir Sinani [www.twitter.com/NezirSinani] and Julia Radomski, and the other is a piece written by Owen Larter and Nicolas Patrick entitled “Microsoft & DLA Piper – Why Human Rights and Human Rights Defenders are Right for our Business” [published in the ISHR Monitor on 27 October 2015]. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Business and human rights, Civil society, corporate accountability, DLA Piper, Environmental issue, Huffington Post, Human Rights Defenders, information technology companies, ISHR, Microsoft, Nezir Sinani, Owen Larter, social accountability, World Bank
September 21, 2015
A bit belatedly, I refer to the interview (19 June 2015) with Alejandro González in the Newsletter of the ISHR. Alejandro is a human rights specialist who works for PODER, an award winning and multi-faceted civil society organisation based in Mexico that helps build the capacities of communities, workers, NGOs, and other civil society groups affected by corporate malfeasance and accompanies their accountability campaigns.
‘We help communities participate in the consultative process. In the end, it is about what communities want. We are not in favour or against the project. We make sure communities know their rights and are aware of the potential positive and negative impacts of the project.’ Free, prior and informed consent of the local communities is needed to pass development projects in indigenous regions of Mexico. Recent reforms, however, have opened the energy sector to both national and international investment. Mexico is currently in a maelstrom of speculation. ‘This is a dangerous situation. Many powerful companies in Mexico have a poor track record in human rights and we are concerned that local communities will lose their power to defend their land rights. Communities affected by gas speculation can either be obliged to sell their land or be forcibly dispossessed. It is vital that we observe, facilitate and publicise these negotiations.’
PODER, together with rural communities, is currently conducting an ex ante human rights impact assessment on extractive projects in Puebla, Mexico. In other states, such as Hidalgo, Oaxaca, and Sonora, PODER conducts participatory research with communities and accompanies their advocacy efforts. In Oaxaca it is part of an international mission to monitor the Free, Prior and Informed Consent process regarding the construction of wind farms by Australian, Dutch, Japanese and Mexican corporations.
‘The government wants to use this case as a model – to set a precedent for all future negotiations. If it goes poorly, the consequences could be devastating … We have met frequently with the Dutch, European Union and other embassies to amplify the voices of local people. We have also conducted extensive research into the companies and provided this information to the community, to help them make informed decisions.’
Standing up to powerful economic actors is dangerous work. In 2013, Héctor Regalado Jiménez, member of the Popular Assembly of the Juchiteco People, was shot and killed after opposing the wind farms. ‘Another activist we were working with died in a suspicious car accident. We still don’t know what happened, but this is a common modus operandi in Mexico. The killers make it look like an accident. Community leaders are frequently subject to death threats and assaults.‘
Since PODER does not directly advocate on land rights issues, Alejandro is not in as much risk as the human rights defenders it supports, though he and his colleagues face increasing surveillance. He believes that a powerful political and corporate élite pose a major challenge to the work of business and human rights defenders across Mexico. ‘There is a small group of families who control most of the market. It is a secretive group who meet with the president and cabinet members behind closed doors. Together they decide the laws and regulations. That’s how they pushed through the reforms that opened up the energy sector.’
To address this lack of transparency in the government and private sector, PODER is involved in online platform such as “Who’s Who Wiki” (rindeucentas.org) and ‘MéxicoLeaks’ – a whistleblowing tool that allows people to send information of public interest through secure technologies that protect the identity of the source. The information received through MéxicoLeaks is then verified, analyzed and published by the partners of the alliance, made up of civil organizations and media outlets. “The investigations that follow allegations communicated via ‘MéxicoLeaks’ are dangerous. In a two-year period, 10 journalists were murdered and 326 attacked. We have seen an increasing use of cyber attacks – as hackers force outlets offline or bombard them with viruses. Any journalist who exposes government corruption can expect to lose his job.”
Despite these adverse conditions, Alejandro is positive that good business practice is in the best interests of businesses. ‘We make corporations aware that human rights violations are a material risk. For example, if a company pollutes a river, there will be mobilisation and litigation against the company as well as a huge attack on their reputation – all of which costs money. Making corporations aware of the cost of violating human rights puts pressure on them to improve their due diligence.‘
‘In Mexico we would like to see a civil society powerful enough to be on equal footing with both the authorities and the private sector. For this you need information, complete transparency in everything the government does and strong accountability mechanisms. The private sector must prioritise human rights with due diligence, and not merely refrain from doing harm, but actively to do good.’
Alejandro González: Mexican corporate accountability human rights defender | ISHR.
see also: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/mexico/
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Alejandro González, Business and human rights, corporate accountability, environmental issues, harassment, Héctor Regalado Jiménez, Human Rights Defenders, indigenous groups, interview, ISHR, Mexico, PODER (NGO), resource extraction
September 3, 2015
On 1 September 2015, the ISHR carried an interview with Soraya Aziz Souleymane, a business and human rights defender from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Soraya holds the role of Deputy Field Office Director in charge of The Carter Center’s Mining Governance Program in the DRC, part of a new generation of young activists and NGO workers dedicated to seeing their country reach its potential.
Soraya started managing grants to affected communities at a large mining company’s foundation. She described her frustrations with the limitations of working within the foundation; she had discovered that many of the decisions about where and how to disburse the funds had already been made as part of the initial negotiations with affected communities. She soon decided to move into the corporate structure itself.
[When I joined the corporation,] it was an exceptional time, because the company was just beginning work in a new area and there was a need for many people… so much so that I was able to create a whole community relations department from the ground up.
Despite the positive experience of getting the first community relations department off the ground, Soraya said she still wasn’t satisfied. She described the realization of the limitations of working with projects, saying: My impact was limited just to this one small community. I couldn’t take those impacts and apply them to others. Also, all the policies had to be linked to production, to the generation of profit for stakeholders and investors. That’s how companies have always worked, and this was no different.
Feeling sidelined after production began at the mine, she joined The Carter Center’s office in 2014.
Soraya described her transition from private sector to civil society, highlighting both challenges and opportunities:
At the company, it was good – we had resources, support, the voice, we had almost immediate access to the ministries, no problem. A big challenge at The Carter Center is that we don’t have the same financial resources or the same level of influence. But other things are better, at least for me. My primary goal now at work is to change the situation of communities – all communities – not simply to increase production or placate one group.
Soraya also uses her new role to engage in direct advocacy with the DRC government. As she said, the chance to influence the policies of the state is ultimately a great opportunity. She also emphasized the value of gaining perspective through exposure to different sectors, and dismissed the idea that working for a company was ‘treason’. Instead, she noted that this kind of movement back and forth, especially within a sector, can lead to a lot of evolution and changing perspectives. It can also lead to more cooperation. We’ve seen many times when civil society and companies have joined forced against the government to say, “No, that will not fly.” It’s a strategic alliance.
…….
And despite the challenges, Soraya has a passion to do this work, and an optimism about civil society. I think my background, the fact that I am Congolese and that I have worked in the sector means I have real interest in and capacity to influence what my country becomes – my children will grow up here.
I am very optimistic because there are many young people who are innovators, who are open to new ideas, who are willing to sit down with a range of stakeholders. They are also willing to say to the international community, “No, we don’t need x, we need y.”
And as for the government, the emphasis is also on frank discussion, even when there is a disagreement. As Soraya says, We must work with them for change – and we must be clear that this is not the same as working for them, as accepting the problem.
-See more at: Soraya Aziz Souleymane: Business and human rights defender from the DRC | ISHR
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Business and human rights, corporate accountability, Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, Human rights defender, interview, Mining, resource extraction, Soraya Aziz Souleymane, The Carter Center’s Mining Governance Program, woman human rights defender
August 11, 2015
Sister Stella Matutina explains the threats of large-scale mining in Mindanao during a conference in early August (Photo by Leon Dulce)
A Benedictine nun, Stella Matutina, is the recipient of Germany’s “Weimar Award for Human Rights” 2015 for her anti-mining advocacy in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao.
Sister Stella Matutina has been recognized for “[engaging] herself extraordinarily for the rights of the native population, despite being exposed to permanent threats to her safety due to her engagements”. “This highlights the situation of Mindanao and the Philippines in general where the poor, the farmers, the indigenous peoples, the human rights activists and defenders of the environment endure harassment and face risks and death,” the 47-year-old nun told ucanews.com (Jefry Tupas, 7 August 2015) . More than a personal recognition, Matutina said the award acknowledges the “collective sacrifices” of freedom and environment defenders in the face of a “systematic effort to limit democratic space and security threats”.
Matutina has been a vocal opponent of attempts to convert the farmlands in Mindanao to plantation crops like palm oil, pineapples, and bananas. She has also led a campaign against the entry of large-scale mining companies in tribal communities in Mindanao. In 2012, the Philippine military labeled Matutina a “fake nun” and accused her of being a communist New People’s Army guerrilla. In 2009, soldiers detained Matutina and two other anti-mining activists in the town of Cateel in Mindanao for giving a lecture on environmental awareness to residents of an upland village. Early this year, authorities charged Matutina, other Church leaders and human rights activists with kidnapping, human trafficking, and illegal detention for taking care of displaced tribal people in the provinces of Davao del Norte and Bukidnon.
“These are proof that helping the oppressed, the poor, the abused comes with great risks,” said Matutina, chairwoman of the Sisters Association of Mindanao and secretary-general of the environment protection group Panalipdan.
Since 1995, the Weimar Award has honored individuals or groups engaged in the fight for freedom and equality, the prevention and condemnation of genocide, the right to free speech, and the respect and preservation of political, ethnic, cultural and religious rights of minorities, among others. The award comes with a 2500,00 Euro stipend.
The same Weimar Human Rights Award went in 2000 to Father Shay Cullen of the Peoples Recovery Empowerment Development Assistance (PREDA) Foundation for his work defending the rights of children and women, victims of human trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation in the Philippines.
via Filipino nun wins German human rights award ucanews.com.
worth noticing also is the language of Radio Vatican used in its own announcement:
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/08/07/philippine_nun_honoured_with_german_human_rights_award/1163662
Posted in awards, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: catholic church, corporate accountability, detention, environmental issues, Germany, human rights awards, indigenous groups, Mindanao, Mining, Philippine, Philippines, Radio Vatican, repression, resource extraction, Shay Cullen, smear campaign, Stella Matutina, ucanews.com, Weimar Award for Human Rights, Weimar human rights award
June 28, 2015
The International Service for Human Rights [ISHR] and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre [BHRRC] organize a well-stocked panel on “Business and the protection of human rights defenders” on 14 July 2015 (12h30-14h30) in London: DLA Piper, 3 Noble Street, London. RSVP by Friday 10 July. The discussion.. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR | 1 Comment »
Tags: #BizHRDs, BHRRC, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Business and human rights, corporate accountability, DLA Piper, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR, Julie Broome, London, Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, MEA laureate 2014, Panel of Experts, Phil Bloomer, Sigrid Rausing Trust, UK
January 24, 2015
Human rights lawyers and their clients stage a picket at the Supreme Court to mark the ‘Day of the Endangered Lawyer’ (photo courtesy of NUPL)
Human rights lawyers in the Philippines on Friday 23 January 2015 protested publicly against the growing death toll within their ranks as they marked the “Day of the Endangered Lawyer” by trooping to the Supreme Court. The protest spearheaded by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers [NUPL] and joined by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was joined by lawyers’ and support groups that staged pickets or held dialogues at Philippine embassies and consulates in 23 cities in 11 European countries.
Figures show that, since attacks on legal professionals began being recorded in 1977, “100 lawyers have been attacked (57 since 2001) while 50 lawyers have been killed (41 since 2001).” “Nineteen judges have been murdered, 18 since 2001”
“Government must simply do its job: protect its citizens, categorically condemn these attacks on lawyers as human rights defenders; seriously and credibly investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators; and uphold human rights because the attacks on lawyers is not only an attack on the individual lawyer, it is an attack on the legal profession, and most fundamentally — in the context of the targeted assaults on human rights and public interest lawyers — an attack itself on the rights and interests of the mostly poor and oppressed in our country”
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/103685/a-deadly-profession–human-rights-lawyers-count-the-costs-on-day-of-the-endangered-lawyer
A petition <http://www.advocatenvooradvocaten.nl/wp-content/uploads/Petition-Day-of-Endangerd-Lawyer-2015.pdf> signed by lawyers organizations from Asia, Canada Europe and the United States calls on the Aquino government to prevent extrajudicial killings and all forms of harassment of lawyers and to end impunity by prosecuting perpetrators of rights violations. The petition also calls on the Aquino government to protect the safety of lawyers as provided for in the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1990. Underlying causes for extrajudicial killings. The practice of labeling (classifying victims as ‘enemies of the state’), the involvement of the military in politics, the proliferation of private armies and vigilante groups and the culture of impunity have been identified by national and international fact-finding bodies as the main root causes for the alarming rate of extrajudicial killings, including the extrajudicial killings of lawyers, in the Philippines.
Away from the capital human rights violations against indigenous people and their human rights defenders also continue as demonstrated in 2 film documentaries:
“Gikan sa Ngitngit nga Kinailadman” (From the Dark Depths) records grave rights violations using interviews and recollections of the survivors and witnesses. The cases featured in the film remains unresolved; the perpetrators waiting for the next human rights defender to hunt. The film shows the atrocities of the military and paramilitary troops, including the armed agents of the agro-industrial corporations in the hinterlands of Mindanao.
-The first case presented in the film is the assassination of Gilbert Paborada—a Higaonon farmer in Bagocboc, Opol, Misamis Oriental. Daisy Paborada, the wife of Gilbert, and Joseph Paborada, his brother, reiterates how the struggle of their community against the entry of palm oil plantations of A Brown Company led to Gilbert’s death.
-The film also shows interviews about the harassment of the Lumad community in Opol as they suffer from the goons of A Brown Company. The harassments and intimidation breed the culture of fear and terror among the people who opt to protect their ancestral domain vis-à-vis the environment over money.
PHOTO taken during the shooting of “Gikan sa Ngitngit nga Kinailadman” in the mountains of Pantaron in Bukidnon. (RMP-NMR)
Dalena is also the director of Alingawngaw ng mga Punglo (Echo of Bullets) that exposed the criminal acts of the military under the infamous General Jovito Palparan, also known as ‘The Butcher.’ Palparan now is in jail, facing allegations of murder against human rights defenders.
Sr. Maria Famita Somogod, regional coordinator of Rmp-Nmr, said the film highlights political repression. The spate of human rights violations featured in the film is the reaction of the government to quell the legitimate dissent of the lumads against the entry of agro-industrial corporations in their ancestral domain. Somogod said the dissent of the lumads and farmers is legitimate. Their demands are to protect their ancestral domain against the encroachment of foreign corporations in the hinterlands. “Instead of seeds, bullets. Instead of food, bombs. Instead of peace, forcible evacuation. Instead of life, death,” Somogod said, adding this is what the ordinary lumads and farmers get for protecting the land of promise.
In the words of the author Anjo Bacarisas, in Sunstar of 25 January: at the end of the film one asks: How should we stop this appalling cruelty against the lumads and farmers?
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/feature/2015/01/25/underbelly-land-promise-388461
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, L4L | Leave a Comment »
Tags: agro-business, corporate accountability, Dalena, Documentary film, Echo of Bullets, extrajudicial killings, From the Dark Depths, harassment, Human Rights Defenders, human rights lawyers, impunity, Independence of Lawyers, Indigenous People, Lawyers for Lawyers, Lumad community, Maria Famita Somogod, National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, Philippines, repression
December 5, 2014
The 3rd UN Forum on Business and Human Rights took place in Geneva from 1-3 December. Here is the personal and very readable report from one participant, Sudeep Chakravarti, who regularly publishes on business and human rights in India.
“A decade ago a global forum such as the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights was inconceivable. Now it is already in its third edition. It is apt that the third United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights took place over 1-3 December in Geneva, marking the 30th anniversary of the gas leak disaster in Bhopal. On the face of it such a gathering may appear to be a grand eyewash: little more than a self-important global talkfest for bureaucrats, businesses—and their sharp handmaidens in law and public relations. Perhaps a budget-justifying annual ball for the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which flowed from a toothless exercise, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, that was formally adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. After all, the UN’s Protect, Respect and Remedy framework that backed such guiding principles is little more than finger-wagging. The principles mention the “States’ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms”; the role of business enterprises “as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights”; and the need for rights and obligations “to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached”. It’s a re-stating of the dazzlingly obvious in the mellow tones of UN bureaucratese: there cannot be human rights in business unless businesses behave, and governments ensure they behave.
That is certainly true in the Indian context. Here complicity of business and government to ignore or dilute the rights of project-affected communities, among other malpractices, is a continuing scandal that foments unrest and has implications for internal security. Even so, the UN forum makes eminent sense. The absence of power to prosecute cannot always be equated with irrelevance. A decade ago a global forum such as this was inconceivable. Now it is already in its third edition. It’s recognition, as with the adoption of UN’s guiding principles by that global body that such issues matter, will increasingly matter. Moreover, each such gathering brings together a clutch of important people, important statements, and release of research data and trends, a reaffirmation of the religion of business and human rights; one in which ethics increasingly signal hassle-free earnings, as opposed to the time-honoured and piratical, but increasingly litiginous, endeavour of earnings over ethics. The UN forum is today a sort of Davos to discuss and disseminate matters of human rights and business, a place to be seen, yes, but more importantly, also to be heard. A virtual wagonload of useful documents in the areas of human rights, community rights, child rights, labour laws and liability, among others, were made available at the forum (accessible at ohchr.org/hrc and business-humanrights.org )—several of which I shall discuss in future. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Danish Institute for Human Rights released a useful tool to track use of child labour, Children’s Rights in Impact Assessments. UNICEF separately shared guidelines on engaging stakeholders in the area of children’s rights. The UN Environment Programme’s Finance Initiative launched the Human Rights Guidance Tool for the Financial Sector, a useful companion to the initiative of the Thun Group of banks, a multinational endeavour of some of the biggest names in investment banking to reduce liability on account of customers’ iffy human rights practices.
Activist-documentation was also unveiled, such as one by the UK-based Peace Brigades International on behalf of what it termed “human rights defenders working on land and environmental issues”. It is titled Recommendations for States and Multilateral Bodies—a response to alleged lending and oversight malpractices by multilateral agencies. For my money, the highlight was the keynote statement at the forum on 2 December by Nestlé SA’s chief executive Paul Bulcke. For the past year beset by accusations of labour wrongdoing directly or by associates in some of Nestlé’s globalized farming and procurement operations, Bulcke’s reiteration of human rights was surely as introspective as it is welcome. “It is in the actions, on the ground, where respect for human rights is visible,” he stated. “In the countries where companies operate, where they have their people working for them, where they source their raw materials and link up with societies; where they produce, where they sell their products and services. That’s where human rights are visible and lived.” If ideas of responsibility, accountability, legal and financial liability, and the danger of diminishing of corporate image remain explicitly and implicitly on the agenda of such a gathering; which aids dissemination of human rights in the spheres of business, governance, activism and judicial redress; and tunes law, it is surely work in progress. And if it is work in progress, it works.”
Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/hHo4qgjWnNPS8qHNxvFgtO/Rootcause.html?utm_source=copy
Human rights: a forum in Geneva – Livemint.
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Business and human rights, Civil society, corporate accountability, Geneva, Human Rights Defenders, Livemint, Sudeep Chakravarti, UN, United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights, United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
December 2, 2014
On 1 December 2014 a group of 7 NGOs (Amnesty International, Digitale Gesellschaft, International Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Open Technology Institute (at New America), Privacy International, Reporters sans frontieres) sent an Open Letter to the “Wassenaar Arrangement” (for what this is see link at the end). The key issue is that the alarming proliferation of surveillance technologies available to repressive countries adversely affects political activists, human rights defenders, refugees, dissidents and journalists.
Here is the text of the letter:
“We, the undersigned organisations, call upon the 41 Governments that compose the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, to take action and address the alarming proliferation of surveillance technologies available to repressive countries involved in committing systematic human rights violations. This trade results in unlawful surveillance, which often leads to further human rights violations including invasions of privacy, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the silencing of free expression, preventing political participation, and crushing offline and online dissent.
Surveillance technologies are not simply harmless tools. In the wrong hands they are often used as a tool of repression. Evidence is continuing to reveal the extent of this secretive trade that puts countless individuals at direct risk from human rights abusing governments. More and more stories emerge showing these damaging and often unlawful technologies affecting political activists, human rights defenders, refugees, dissidents and journalists, with some technologies placing entire populations under surveillance. Governments with internationally condemned human rights records such as Bahrain, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Libya, Syria and Iran have all purchased surveillance technologies from private companies, and have used them to facilitate a variety of human rights violations. Some revelations in France, Germany, the UK, and the US have led to police and judicial investigations following calls from NGOs and members of the Coalition Against Unlawful Surveillance Exports. Remarkably and despite mounting evidence of associated abuses, surveillance technology companies still openly market their products at ‘trade fairs’ across the UK, France, US, Brazil and the UAE among other countries.
Although steps were taken in 2013 to address this largely unregulated global market, governments cannot let the momentum halt. Governments have now included additional technologies associated with intrusion software and IP monitoring to the Lists of Dual Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions, and are aware of the impact surveillance technologies can have on human rights. There is now a pressing need to modernise out of date export controls. In addition, technologies such as undersea fibre-optic cable taps, monitoring centres, and mass voice / speaker recognition technologies urgently need to be examined for their impact on human rights and internal repression, particularly when the end user is a government known for committing human rights violations. Technologies evolve at a rapid pace and governments that abuse human rights take advantage of weak regulation, the product of poor understanding of the technologies and their capabilities.
In the current system, human rights and digital rights groups, as well as external independent experts, are excluded from contributing their expertise and knowledge to the Wassenaar Arrangement forum. The additional expertise and knowledge that civil society can bring to the debate is invaluable to this end. Discussions should not continue in a closed-forum manner and we urge governments to engage with civil society organisations to help ensure that accurate and effective controls are developed which reflect modern technological developments and do not impede legitimate scientific and security research.
Any export policy relating to surveillance technologies should place human rights at its heart. Governments must exercise a strict policy of restraint and should refuse to grant export licenses for surveillance technology destined for end-users in countries where they are likely to be used in an unlawful manner i.e. not compliant with human rights legal standards. Governments should consider the weakness or absence of an appropriate legal framework in the recipient country to ensure the transfer would not pose a substantial risk of the items being used to violate or abuse human rights. Governments should also be transparent in what they export, and to whom and support the development of an international legal framework to address the sale and trade of surveillance technologies.”
An Open Letter to the Members of the Wassenaar Arrangement | Human Rights Watch.
The Wassenaar Arrangement (41 participating States) has been established in order to contribute to regional and international security and stability, by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilising accumulations. Participating States seek, through their national policies, to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities which undermine these goals, and are not diverted to support such capabilities.
from: http://www.wassenaar.org/introduction/index.html
Posted in AI, FIDH, HRW, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, RSF | 1 Comment »
Tags: Civil society, corporate accountability, digital security, Human Rights Defenders, Information and Communication Technology, mass surveillance, repression, right to privacy, Wassenaar Arrangement
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 