Posts Tagged ‘Foreign Policy’

« Older posts

First assessment of Human Rights under the Trump Administration by HRW

March 5, 2025

Amy Braunschweiger speaks with Human Rights Watch’s US Program Director Tanya Greene, who leads research within the United States, as well as Washington Director Sarah Yager, who advocates with the US government on global issues, about the slew of executive orders President Trump has issued, the damage to human rights his administration’s policies have already done, and where we go from here.The text – reproduced in full below, was published on 3 March 2025.

See also: https://youtu.be/N_hCOCVuJsA?si=t2lUEb3Fw8XWH7Vo where UN human rights chief Volker Türk has voiced deep concerns for hostilities happening across the globe, including a “fundamental shift in direction” of the US. He expressed concern over a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war that did not involve Kyiv.

President Trump has been governing by executive orders. Could you give us some quick background on executive orders and what they do?

TG: An executive order is a presidential directive regarding federal government operations and policies. Their reach and power can be extraordinary, including because they often impact federally funded non-governmental entities, like universities and housing providers. Executive orders should be based on existing law, and are often operationalized through agency action, such as the departments of labor, homeland security, or education.

Many of Trump’s executive orders are facing court challenges arguing that they are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For example, his executive order denying citizenship to children of undocumented people born in the United States has been stayed by the courts pending a legal challenge. It is widely seen as a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Although the implementation of executive orders is not always automatic, widespread responses have been preemptive, anticipatory, and fearful, which is likely what Trump intended in this blitz of actions.

SY: These executive orders show how split the United States is. In 2016, Trump’s executive orders reversed former President Barack Obama’s. Then Joe Biden reversed Trump’s orders. And today, Trump reverses Biden’s. But this isn’t typical. It shows the divisive nature of US politics.

It’s also not typical that so many of these current orders are harmful to human rights.

Many of Trump’s executive orders harm human rights, both in the United States and around the world. Meanwhile, billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, is laying off masses of federal employees at various agencies. What are we most concerned about inside the US?

TG:  Whatever its supposed intentions, DOGE is slashing and burning to the point that a growing number of federal agencies are crippled by lack of resources, staff, and competent leadership. DOGE is also taking down websites and data that we rely on, both as human rights defenders and as the general public seeks information. For instance, hospitals across the country can no longer obtain important public health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Human Rights Watch is investigating the treatment of immigrant children, racial justice impacts, environmental concerns, healthcare access, rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people, and reproductive freedoms. You have a president that says diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is “dangerous, demeaning and immoral” but offers no ways to fight racial injustice, and yet one of his executive orders allows for resettling certain supposedly-persecuted white South Africans in the US, just after an earlier order closed the refugee admissions door on all other refugees worldwide.

Immigration enforcement raids and other enforcement activities in the last month have targeted all immigrant communities, disproportionately those of color. Enforcement has targeted immigrants regardless of how long they have been in the United States and without considering their contributions to their communities, as well as people in the process of an immigration proceeding, where a judge decides if they can stay in the US.  As a result, there are communities in which many people are terrified and some avoid going to church or the hospital, and many children don’t go to school.

There is also an order now in place defunding reproductive justice and abortion access both in the US and around the world.

The stock value of GEO Group, a company the US government has long contracted with to run private immigration detention facilities, went up immediately after Trump’s election, presumably in anticipation of ramped-up immigration detention in private facilities. Human Rights Watch has long called for investment in community-based public safety solutions rather than more prisons.

What are we worried about in terms of US foreign policy?

SY: The foreign aid freeze and termination of thousands of State Department grants is a key focus for us right now, though of course there are new concerns that rise up every day. The aid being stopped has had awful consequences around the world. People will die needlessly because of this one policy decision.

There is also an impact on civil and political rights abroad. Russian independent media outlets, which have been doing an amazing job exposing the Kremlin’s repression and debunking the official propaganda, received significant US-funding. Terminating aid will severely undercut that work. The same thing with Belarusian independent media.

Many human rights defenders targeted by their governments lived in US-funded safe houses, which are now closed.

Small human rights groups, some the only ones in their country, are on the verge of closing. We’re going to see the ripple effects and deaths in populations unable to stand up for their freedoms without this funding and the political support the United States gave.

Aside from the aid freeze, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the military’s top lawyers. Military lawyers are supposed to ensure US military operations abide by international law, the laws of war.  This could mean far more harm to civilians, who are supposed to be protected, when the US military is in an armed conflict. In fact, Trump also just lifted limits on US commanders authorizing airstrikes and special operations raids outside of war zones, which rolls back 20 years of work to ensure only combatants are targeted and only in recognized armed conflicts.

These kinds of actions will have long-term ramifications on how people around the world view the United States.

When there’s so much happening in a short period of time, how does Human Rights Watch approach its work?

TG: We remember our priorities and how we can make a difference. There’s a lot of noise and distraction so we have to be thoughtful about putting limited resources into efforts that have impact. Our research on immigration raids or deportation flights might be used in partner litigation; our interviews with witnesses to abuses help support policymakers advocating in support of human rights.

As an organization with colleagues who deal with repressive states and authoritarian regimes globally, those of us working in the US are informed of effective strategies and lessons learned as we encounter them here. And we can share this information with partners on the ground and policymakers, too.

SY: We were not caught off guard by this. We were able to plan. I do think the speed, the apparent vindictiveness, and the level of chaos of Trump’s first month in office shocked many people. But we planned for this. We had a strategy that we are now implementing. We are going to engage with every policymaker that we can. We know for a fact many on both sides of the aisle don’t agree with what is happening. We are going to document the Trump administration’s impact on human rights around the world, and we’re going to try and block or end those policies. We are working together with our partners, some of whom focus on strategic litigation – litigation designed to advance respect for and protection of rights.

How is Human Rights Watch responding to this? What is our work inside the US focusing on?

TG: All the areas of work I mentioned are under attack by the new administration.

The immigration space is fraught with misinformation that stokes fears and prejudices, but we counter that with fact-finding and with the stories of the real people who are harmed by dehumanizing rhetoric and policies.  We will build on our track record of careful research on problematic immigration policies from previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, exposing harmful policies such as inhuman and degrading immigration detention and the separation of migrant children from their parents. We are continuing this work, documenting what’s happening to people and using it to advocate for change.

We’ve seen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deporting Iranian families with children to Panama with an agreement that the US will pay for Panama to deport them to Iran. A country cannot lawfully send Iranian asylum seekers to Panama without hearing their claims and just be done with it – sending them back to a country to face persecution violates international refugee law. The administration is also preparing to deport unaccompanied immigrant children – not just cruel and terrifyingly dangerous, but a human rights violation.

In the democracy space, some US voters seem ready to trade freedoms away for supposed gains that are ultimately long-term losses, like increased surveillance, that will embolden and enable bad actors in government.

In the racial equality space, we’ve been working on education, and that is a battle zone. We are doing research to expose state-level policies that censor and distort school curricula in ways that are inconsistent with human rights norms—measures that target the histories and experiences of Black, Indigenous and LGBT people in particular. If those efforts succeed they will be exported to other states.

How is our work responding to changes in the foreign policy space?

SY: The Trump executive order putting in place a sanctions program targeting the International Criminal Court has already done damage. We are working to convince the Senate not to legislate more sanctions, and to make sure other governments step up to defend the court from US pressure.

We continue to focus on some of the conflicts where we think the Trump administration could play a valuable role. When it comes to Sudan, where the US government itself said a genocide took place, the US could pressure allies like the United Arab Emirates to stop supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, one of the abusive warring parties there.

President Trump says he wants to be a peacemaker. There are ways he could do that, but so far we are seeing very worrying foreign policy proposals. For example, Ukraine’s future is being discussed by the United States and Russia without Ukraine, and in Gaza, Trump has proposed permanently and forcibly displacing the Palestinian population, which would amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

Some people would say there is no way to engage with this administration on human rights.

SY: Engaging is certainly more challenging. But we don’t want to just walk away from our advocacy with US officials. Then you give up the power of the human rights movement, and any opportunity to change the minds of policymakers. There are still people in this administration who care about human rights. They may talk about it differently, they may be focused on particular places or issues. We’ll start there and make our case for the US role in lessening suffering and protecting rights around the world, not only because it’s good but because it’s smart and it’s in the US interest.

And there’s Congress, which needs to step up as a check on the power of the White House. We will continue to work with House representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle.

TG:  The fear that the administration is cultivating among the public is dangerous, and information is so critical in response. That’s why we respond with research, arming people with facts. We know there are members of congress and state leadership like governors that support human rights. They are also empowered by our work.

What can people in the US do in this situation?

SY: If we want to see rights on the agenda, we need to see people in the United States reaching out to their representatives in Congress. They were elected to bring to Washington the needs and desires of their people.

Also, if you see a person acting with courage in these difficult times, thank them. We’re going so fast, and we push and yell and scream, and then when a policymaker, a celebrity, or the head of a local food bank steps out and does the right thing, we move on. Stop for a minute and recognize the people doing the right thing. Make the space for them to keep doing that important work of holding the line.

TG: Also, you too can be that person. Share the information. Have the conversations with your friends and family, provide what you know, encourage exchange of real information. It’s about building community. One of the strongest weapons we have is our unity, and we can each do something to build that.

Religious communities and school groups and community centers, there are many places we can plug in to make a difference. Support your local homeless shelter or food pantry. Sponsor or reach out to refugees and immigrants living in your localities. I think the big risk is feeling powerless and unplugging. I know the temptation is great. We each don’t have to do everything. But if we all do something, that’s more than nothing. And don’t be afraid to hear “no” or lose on your first try. No is the first step to yes.

And remember that there have been people in this country who have been targeted for abuse and destruction by the government their entire time in this country. Us as Black people, Indigenous people. And we’ve not only survived but thrived, and there are lessons to be learned from those struggles. And for the rest of the US population, we are a nation of mostly immigrants who came here to escape ills like human rights abuses or poverty. So gain strength from that.

We’re doing this work for the next generation as well as the present. Not only are we trying to protect rights for them, we are also modeling what to do when you have problems and face difficulties.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/03/interview-snapshot-rights-under-trump-administration

Posted in HRW, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, OHCHR, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Advisory Council on International Affairs of Netherlands issues report recommending change in human rights policy

May 9, 2023


On 9 April 2021, the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) received from the Dutch
government a request for advice on human rights in a changing world. The basic premise of
the request was that the multilateral system, as it has developed since the Second World War,
is increasingly under pressure. In the government’s view, autocratic tendencies are eroding the
multilateral system from within, and this is having a clear impact on human rights.
The request for advice draws attention to several troubling developments. The basic principles
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (human dignity, universality, equality/non-
discrimination and indivisibility) are being challenged more and more frequently, not only outside
the EU but also within it. Due to the rapidly growing influence of autocratically governed states, the
preconditions defined by the Netherlands for pursuing an effective international human rights policy,
such as space for civil society, cooperation with like-minded partners and the proper functioning of
multilateral instruments, are under pressure.

Summary:
….In this advisory report of 28 June 2022, the AIV aims to set out a path – in both conceptional and operational terms
– for Dutch human rights policy abroad. To this end, it is important to have a good understanding of
how the human rights system came into being and how it has come under pressure in recent decades.
….Historical analysis shows that the relevance of the human rights system has increased in recent
decades. Although the universality and legitimacy of the ideas in question are a source of constant
debate, empirical research demonstrates to what extent – and under what circumstances – human
rights make a difference. The AIV believes that the universality of human rights should be the central
focus but it cannot be equated with uniformity in the implementation of those rights. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/11/17/rescuing-human-rights-another-way-of-re-assessing-human-rights/]For many
states, cultural and historical differences have helped shape their varying approaches to human rights.
In fact, universality in the sense of universal acceptance of human rights is actually enhanced and
promoted when cultural diversity is acknowledged.
Despite all these achievements, the multilateral human rights system is under serious pressure.
The beginning of the 21st century was a turning point in this regard. During this period, various
events and developments concurred to undermine and erode the multilateral system and the human
rights system that had developed over the previous fifty years. These events and developments include
9/11 and the ‘war on terror’, the success and subsequent stagnation of democratic developments and
the resulting pressure on civil society, new geopolitical relations, the impact of globalisation and
challenges within the human rights system itself.
After 11 September 2001, the war on terror in Afghanistan and later in Iraq gave rise to practices
that were sometimes at odds with international law. As a result, the West in particular was accused
of applying double standards. In addition, while pro-democracy movements in the Arab world
and elsewhere achieved successes (thanks in part to social media), they also prompted regimes to
respond with repression against civil society and human rights defenders. Alongside a rapid rise in
China’s economic, military and political power and self-assurance, the United States’ international
involvement was foundering (a trend which intensified later under President Trump) and the Russian
Federation became increasingly repressive. In the midst of these geopolitical developments, the EU
proved unable to play a significant enough role to prevent the decline of the human rights acquis.
Furthermore, the wave of neoliberal globalisation, which was initially regarded as having a positive
economic and social impact, also turned out to have negative effects. Both externally and beyond
doubt internally, the West was increasingly confronted with rising income and wealth inequality at
national level, the growing power of multinational corporations, and the intractable misuse of social
media by governments, organisations and individuals.
In addition, the human rights system itself faced considerable obstacles: the indivisibility of
political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights was not adequately guaranteed and new positive
developments, such as the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, did not make their
human rights component explicit enough. Human rights instruments were further undermined by
overextension and insufficient funding, which negatively impacted their effectiveness.
Due in part to these developments, the unanimously accepted principle of the universality of human
rights was put in jeopardy, partly because states increasingly expressed reservations about the
principle and partly because a growing number of autocratic, repressive states appeared to have little
or no interest in the human rights acquis.
Nevertheless, there have also been some positive developments. New and in some cases global non-
governmental movements made up of non-traditional actors, often including young participants,
are standing up for social justice and human rights. Businesses are taking a more active approach to
showing respect for and promoting human rights, on their own initiative or as a result of external
pressure. Professional associations and networks are increasingly cooperating at global level to
protect human rights. The EU’s human rights instruments are becoming stronger and more
sophisticated in response to external threats and internal negative tendencies in countries such as
Hungary and Poland. Finally, a new approach to human rights has taken hold at national and local
level, for example in the form of national human rights institutes.
In contrast to the aforementioned political and social changes and threats, these developments create
new opportunities for the realisation of human rights around the world. However, the question is
how the Dutch government should take advantage of these opportunities. How can the Netherlands
actively promote human rights around the world while also continuing to respect them at national
level?
A robust and effective human rights policy requires a strong foreign policy narrative. In this revamped
message, human rights are the crucial link between the Netherlands’ core values and policy goals at
national and international level. Human rights can be more solidly anchored if they are explicitly
incorporated into other global policy areas and narratives, such as the Sustainable Development
Goals, climate, the environment and migration. Coalitions with like-minded countries and
partnerships with civil society within and outside Europe are essential in this regard. The Netherlands
must focus on developing new international and EU instruments to protect human rights and tackle
human rights violations, such as the human rights clauses in EU trade, partnership and association
agreements.
The AIV calls on the government to prioritise human rights. As far as foreign policy is concerned,
this requires the Netherlands to take an effective and explicit moral stance in a complex environment
characterised by realpolitik and tense international relations. A more integrated approach, new
partnerships and the provision of an effective counterweight, based on an understanding of the
cultural context in other countries, are key building blocks in this regard.
Human rights are not just a worthy ideal but also a clear matter of enlightened self-interest, in that
they form a vital link between democracy and the rule of law, on the one hand, and international
security, on the other. Idealism need not be shunned, and every effort must be made to preserve the
international human rights acquis. In order to achieve this goal, however, a much more pragmatic
and realistic approach that recognises today’s realities, including shifts in geopolitical relations, is
required.
Such an approach has both a foreign and a domestic dimension. In addition to prioritising human
rights internationally, the Netherlands also ought to do so at home. This approach requires an
appreciation of other viewpoints, but a robust response when internationally accepted, fundamental
boundaries are crossed.
Only in this way can the Netherlands more effectively protect and promote human rights as a core
interest in a changing constellation of political forces.

https://www.advisorycouncilinternationalaffairs.nl/documents/publications/2022/06/28/human-rights-a-core-interest-in-the-current-geopolitical-context

Posted in books, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,

Turkey finally starts paying a prize for its authoritarianism

May 20, 2021

Ahval on 20 May 2021 reports that the European Parliament said the EU’s membership talks with Turkey should be formally suspended unless the country reverses its democratic backsliding.

Parliamentarians said they were alarmed by the “authoritarian nature of the presidential system” in Turkey in a report adopted on Wednesday. The resolution was probably the toughest and most critical yet of Turkey, said rapporteur Nacho Sánchez Amor.

 “It reflects all that has unfortunately happened in the country in the last two years, in particular in the fields of human rights and rule of law, which remain the main concern for the European Parliament, and in its relations towards the EU and its members,” Amor said.

EU institutions should now make any positive agenda on Turkey conditional on democratic reform, he said.

Turkey began membership talks with the EU in October 2005. The negotiations were partly frozen a year later due to Turkey’s refusal to open its ports to ships from the Greek part of Cyprus. The EU informally approved a freeze in the membership process in 2016 citing a deterioration in democracy.

Turkey reacted angrily to the report, saying it was unacceptable in a period when relations with the EU were based on a positive agenda and a membership perspective.

The text contains “false allegations regarding human rights, democracy, the rule of law, our governmental system and political parties; and views Turkey’s effective, solution-oriented, humanitarian and enterprising foreign policy as a threat,” the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement. See also my recent: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/03/22/turkey-arrests-and-backsliding-on-femicide/

EU lawmakers pointed to a “continued hyper-centralisation of power in the presidency” and called on Turkey’s relevant authorities to release all imprisoned human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, academics and others, who it said the government had detained on unsubstantiated charges.

Turkey adopted a full presidential system of government at elections in 2018, awarding President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vast executive powers, including the ability to rule by decree.

MEPS also highlighted Turkey’s “hostile” foreign policy, including towards Greece and Cyprus, and over its involvement in Syria, Libya, and the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which they said consistently collided with the EU’s priorities.

Lawmakers also urged Turkey to recognise the Armenian Genocide, which they said would pave the way for genuine reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian people.

https://ahvalnews.com/eu-turkey/eu-parliament-highlights-authoritarianism-turkey-call-halt-talks

Posted in EU, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,

Brooking’s webinar on China’s growing international ambition

September 30, 2020

 

Over the last several years, the world has seen China taking on more responsibility and power in international institutions. China’s growing ‘activism’ has provided a glimpse into its ambitions to assert a greater role for itself on matters of global governance. China’s growing activism also has raised key questions about the scale of Beijing’s ambitions and the tools it would be willing to use to advance them. On September 21, Foreign Policy at Brookings hosted a webinar to address these and other questions concerning China’s evolving approach to international institutions, rules, and norms. The event launched the next tranche of Brookings papers released as part of its series “Global China: Assessing China’s Growing Role in the World.” From human rights to energy to trade, these papers present a range of arguments for observers of China and policymakers to consider as they evaluate China’s role on the international stage.

in this context see also; https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2012/12/06/china-and-its-amazing-sensitivity-on-human-rights-defenders/ and https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/03/07/china-and-the-un-human-rights-council-really-win-win/  as well as recent: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/09/29/kenneth-roth-speaks-plainly-on-international-human-rights-china-a-violator-and-us-unprincipled/

Posted in Human Rights Defenders, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,

New EU Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024

March 27, 2020

Since the adoption of the EU strategic framework on human rights and democracy in 2012, the EU has adopted two EU Action Plans (2012-2014 and 2015-2019). The new proposal follows up on this, setting out the priorities for the period of 2020-2024.

This Action Plan identifies priorities around five mutually reinforcing lines of action:

  • Protecting and empowering individuals;
  • Building resilient, inclusive and democratic societies;
  • Promoting a global system for human rights and democracy;
  • New technologies: harnessing opportunities and addressing challenges;
  • Delivering by working together.

What is new in this Action Plan?

The new Action Plan builds on the previous action plans and continues to focus on some long-standing priorities, such as supporting human rights defenders and the fight against death penalty. More importance is given to empower people and defeat discrimination on all grounds. It also addresses more prominently the accountability gap, the erosion of rule of law and access to justice. This Action Plan takes account of today’s world new challenges and therefore focuses in particular on:

  • environmental challenges and climate change;
  • leveraging the benefits of digital technologies and minimising the risks of misuse in line with EU’s commitment to lead the transition to a new digital world;
  • stepping up economic, social and cultural rights;
  • more emphasis on democracy, including on the misuse of online technologies and shrinking civic and political space;
  • a stronger focus on human rights defenders;
  • strategic communication and public diplomacy.

How will the Action Plan be implemented?

The objectives under the Action Plan will be implemented at country, regional and multilateral level, taking account of local circumstances and specificities. The EU will leverage the broad range of policies, tools and political and financial instruments at its disposal to implement it, such as:

  • political, human rights and sectoral policy dialogues;
  • EU trade policies, including the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences;
  • thematic and geographical instruments under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework;
  • actions in multilateral and regional human rights fora;
  • communication activities and awareness‑raising campaigns;
  • public statements, démarches;
  • observing trials of human rights defenders;
  • the implementation of 13 EU human rights guidelines;
  • election observation and its follow-up;
  • dialogue with civil society, human rights organisations and the business sector.

The EU Action Plan provides guidance to over 140 EU Delegations and Offices as well as Member States embassies for targeted initiatives and actions at country level all over the world.

How will the Commission and the High Representative follow up on and monitor the implementation of this Action Plan?

Actions apply to all regions in the world taking into consideration local needs and specificities. The EU’s 142 Delegations and Offices will take a lead in reflecting the priority actions in initiatives at the country level including through the adoption of tailored-made strategies at a local level. The EU will also engage with different stakeholders on the overall implementation, and organise an annual meeting with civil society. The public EU annual report on Human rights and democracy in the worldis another effective tool to monitor the progress made in a transparent manner. A mid-term review of the implementation is foreseen.

What has the EU achieved on human rights and democracy worldwide so far?

  • Since 2015, more than 30 000 human rights defenders were protected by the EU via the dedicated mechanism ProtectDefenders.eu. In 2019 alone, the EU raised Human Rights Defenders cases in dialogues and consultations with over 40 countries.
  • The EU advocated for abolition of death penalty.
  • Between January 2015 and October 2019, the EU supported over 3 350 actions relevant to children’s rights in 148 third countries and territories. For example, under the global programme on Female Genital Mutilation (€11 million), 16 countries adopted action plans and 12 established national budget lines to put an end to Female Genital Mutilation.
  • In 2014-2019, the EU supported democracy in more than 70 partner countries with €400 million aiming at, for instance, contributing to the organisation of elections and supporting oversight bodies, independent media, parliaments and political parties to play their essential role in democratic societies. 98 EU Election Observation Missionswere deployed worldwide.
  • The General System of Preference contributed to the implementation of human rights and labour Conventions, including through monitoring missions in 11 countries in the last year. For example, this contributed to a reduction of child labour to 1% in Sri Lanka through pioneering ‘Child Labour Free Zones’.

 

Joint Proposal

…Article 22 of the Treaty on the European Union offers the European Council the possibility to adopt a unanimous Decision setting out the EU’s strategic interests and objectives in specific areas of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Once the European Council sets the strategic objectives, the Council would then be able to adopt by qualified majority (QMV) decisions implementing the European Council’s strategic decisions.

Why is this proposed now? In 2018, the Commission has proposed to move from unanimity to QMV in certain areas of the CFSP. The Von Der Leyen Commission recognises that to be a global leader, the Union needs to take decisions in a faster and more effective way and overcome unanimity constraints that hamper our foreign policy, as set out in the High Representative/Vice-President’s mission letter. The Joint Proposal adopted by the College today offers such a possibility, by proposing to take decision related to the implementation of the Action Plan by QMV.

For more information:

Press release

Joint Communication EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024

EU Action Plan 2020-2024

Joint Proposal for a recommendation of the Council to the European Council

Annex to the Joint Proposal for a recommendation of the Council to the European Council

 

Posted in EU, Human Rights Defenders | 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,

More re-thinking and ‘shrinking’ of the modern human rights concept

September 8, 2019

I have referred to the issue of re-visiting the human rights concept – which keeps popping up especially when there is a sense of malaise – by several strands of thought within the human rights movement. Some think the answer is to broaden the base and the scope even more [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/08/05/amnesty-internationals-global-assembly-2019-deserves-more-attention-big-shifts-coming-up/]; others think a re-think is in order but those range from Trump’s State Department [[https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/07/11/trump-marches-on-with-commission-on-unalienable-rights/] to moderate academics [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/04/20/hurst-hannum-wants-a-radically-moderate-approach-to-human-rights/].

In a opinion piece in Foreign Policy of 6 September 2019 entitled “When Everything Is a Human Right, Nothing Is”  – a Lecturer in the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Adviser for the Institute for Integrated Transitions – shows he belongs to the latter category albeit with a strong dose of return to basics (return to the UDHR) and a whiff of cultural relativism:

.. given the myriad challenges to human rights today, rethinking some widely accepted human rights assumptions seems timely. …

Some disagreements over human rights come from repressive regimes or communal leaders, and such complaints are easy to dismiss. But when critiques come from people who are sympathetic to the cause of human rights, they reflect something more fundamentally troubling. How did an idea once powerful enough to unify a vast range of people in struggles against totalitarianism and apartheid become so impotent? A major factor, ironically, was the overweening dual ambition born of those successes. Human rights advocates have broadened the scope of issues covered by human rights while narrowing the room for differences in bringing those rights to life. In so doing, they misconstrue the original goals of human rights, most clearly embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundation for much of the post-1945 rights project. Even as their ambitions rise, human rights activists have failed to take into account how expansive new programs might aggravate suspicion of human rights in today’s multipolar world. And attempts to enforce a uniform conception of rights might reduce the space for local actors to formulate their own pathways, fueling skepticism about the rights themselves. For example, attempts by Western countries to promote gay rights in Africa triggered deep-rooted resentment about how the West treats Africa; the results are tougher laws, stronger rhetoric, more funding of anti-gay rights organizations, and even greater harassment of activists. As the New York Times reported, “More Africans came to believe that gay rights were a Western imposition.”

Non-Western countries do not necessarily disagree with basic human rights goals. Rather, as the Brazilian academic Oliver Stuenkel argues in his book Post-Western World, they contest the “operationalization of liberal norms” and “the implicit and explicit hierarchies of international institutions” that privilege Western countries. U.S. retrenchment in the Middle East and the rise of authoritarian states like China reduce the effective reach of ideas that are stretched too thin or that are not credibly universal, in the sense of being deeply grounded in all the world’s major philosophical and religious systems. And curtailing overly expansionist and revisionist aspirations, as Jennifer Lind and William C. Wohlforth recently wrote in Foreign Affairs, is essential to preserving the post-World War II liberal international order.

If advocates for human rights wish to overcome the current challenges, they would do well to learn from the course of the human rights project from ideal to reality in the wake of World War II. The framers of the Universal Declaration learned that the best way to build a system of rights with a strong claim to legitimacy across different cultures and ideologies was to stick to basics. Today, only a modest and flexible approach can restore the moral authority that gave the universal human rights idea its greatest successes.

The 1948 Universal Declaration was a product of intense debate, negotiation, and compromise, all done with the understanding that its principles could be brought to life differently in dissimilar parts of the world. Today’s human rights discourse, however, is pervaded by Western normative assumptions that are controversial even in the West. Westerners play an extraordinarily large role as funders and conveners of human rights organizations and scholarly debates, directly and indirectly shaping agendas, frameworks of analysis, and evaluation methods in the process. As a result, human rights have become, as the New York University professor Sally Engle Merry writes in Human Rights and Gender Violence, “part of a distinctive modernist vision of the good and just society that emphasizes autonomy, choice, equality, secularism, and protection of the body,” converting cultural norms from one part of the world into universal rights.

Consequently, nonindividualistic values—such as those promoting communal duties or those tied to religious belief—have been de-emphasized. Arguments that there are other means of promoting and ensuring human dignity are dismissed as unrealistic or ignored. African, Asian, and other non-Western human rights institutions and laws are marginalized.

Meanwhile, the number of rights, and rights claims, has risen steeply as various well-meaning special interest groups have sought to harness the moral authority of the human rights idea to their causes. The international legal infrastructure has been enlarged, producing institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and doctrines such as the “Responsibility to Protect,” but these focus mainly on geopolitically weak or unimportant—10 of the 11 situations under investigation at the ICC are African—countries, while governments such as Syria’s commit atrocities with little fear of prosecution or intervention because Russia, one of its two main international backers, undermines any attempt to hold the country’s leaders accountable.

The human rights field’s ambitions not only have produced unnecessary clashes over human rights, but they have also diminished the core rights that were meant to, above all else, uphold human dignity.

In Europe, for example, advocates for abolishing circumcision have argued that a child’s bodily integrity is a human right while attempting to reduce religious freedom to a mere right to worship. This has led government ombudspersons to call for a ban, pediatric societies to call the practice “mutilation,” the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to pass a resolution against the practice, political parties to lobby for legislation outlawing the practice, and a court in Germany to rule that the act of circumcision should be considered a prosecutable physical assault. For devout Jews and Muslims, these developments feel like direct attacks on a ritual integral to their faiths.

In Asia, instead of welcoming the 2012 Human Rights Declaration by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as representing some important steps forward, organizations such as Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the U.S. State Department criticized the document for differing from their preferred emphases. Even though it included all the civil and political rights that similar documents elsewhere have—as well as innovative provisions related to those with AIDS, childbearing mothers, human trafficking, vulnerable groups, and children—these groups objected to the declaration’s emphasis that rights must be balanced with duties and that realization of rights has to take into account the local political and cultural context. But it is precisely the regional flavor that is most likely to increase the ASEAN declaration’s legitimacy—and thus the chance that it will be embraced locally.

In Africa, select issues that concern Western countries are often promoted in ways that pay little heed to local conditions, provoking a backlash. In Kenya, international attempts to prosecute Uhuru Kenyatta for fueling ethnic violence after the 2007 election ignored how this would boost his popularity among his supporters—helping him to eventual victory in the 2013 elections.

The mindset currently prevailing among many human rights actors thus makes it extremely difficult to realize the aim of the Universal Declaration’s framers to promote the implementation of fundamental human rights principles under a variety of circumstances and cultures. The result has been to reduce both the effectiveness and appeal of those principles. Human rights organizations are less able to embed themselves within local cultures and gain legitimacy in the eyes of local people. Greater flexibility in implementation would enable human rights supporters to focus on the importance of political dynamics and incentives to promoting change within countries. For example, the end of white rule in South Africa was brought about not by threatening apartheid leaders with international justice but by first sanctioning and then offering incentives for leaders to transfer power. Reconciliation and truth commissions played prominent roles; retribution was limited. The country crafted a new, inclusive national identity and developed a constitution around existing institutions, a stark contrast to efforts in Iraq and Libya that tried to replace institutions and exclude members of the previous regime.

The human rights movement should refocus on the principles of the Universal Declaration—a document more praised than understood. Its drafters developed a framework for human rights that was both universal and flexible. Their aim was to establish a “common standard of achievement,” based on the “inherent dignity” and “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”

This would entail recognizing that in a world of great cultural and political diversity, human rights cannot be universal unless kept to a small core of rights so fundamental that almost no country would openly oppose them.

In the original Universal Declaration, only a handful were drafted in such a way as to leave little room for flexibility in implementation. These include protections for religion and conscience, as well as prohibitions against genocide; slavery; torture; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; retroactive penal measures; deportation or forcible transfer of population; and discrimination based on race, color, sex, language, religion, nationality, or social origin. Today, many human rights treaties make these rights nonderogable—i.e., there are no circumstances under which they can be lifted or suspended. Where other rights are concerned, the framers of the Universal Declaration were clear that universality does not mean homogeneity in implementation. They expected states to experiment with different modes of implementation—to allow “different kinds of music” to be “played on the same keyboard,” as the French philosopher Jacques Maritain, who supported the U.N. process, put it. Indeed, Eleanor Roosevelt made clear in 1948 during one of the debates over the Universal Declaration that methods for implementing many rights “would necessarily vary from one country to another and such variations should be considered not only inevitable but salutary.” For example, individuals everywhere have the right to be free of torture, but different countries may legitimately come to different conclusions about when private property may be taken for public use.

Moreover, in resolving tensions among rights, no fundamental right should be completely ignored. By specifying that all rights must be exercised with due respect for the rights of others, the framers intended that clashes should be occasions to figure out how to give each right as much protection as possible while never subordinating any right completely to another. Ultimately, a culture of human rights can only be built from the bottom up. Focusing on the gravest violations of human dignity while understanding that other rights can be protected in a legitimate variety of ways is the best way to achieve this.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/06/when-everything-is-a-human-right-nothing-is/

Posted in human rights | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,

One journalist who did NOT get the Women of Courage Award (but almost)

March 12, 2019
First lady Melania Trump honors the International Women of Courage awardees during a ceremony at the State Department in Washington on March 29, 2017. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

A few days ago I referred to the International Women of Courage Awards [see; https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/03/11/international-women-of-courage-awards-2019-given-out-at-the-us-state-department/]. One name you will NOT see listed there is that of Jessikka Aro, a Finnish investigative journalist.   explain why in Foreign Policy of 7 March 2019.

Jessikka Aro was to receive a “Women of Courage” prize. Then officials read her Twitter feed.

Jessikka Aro, a Finnish investigative journalist, has faced down death threats and harassment over her work exposing Russia’s propaganda machine long before the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. In January, the U.S. State Department took notice, telling Aro she would be honored with the prestigious International Women of Courage Award, to be presented in Washington by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Weeks later, the State Department rescinded the award offer. A State Department spokesperson said it was due to a “regrettable error,” but Aro and U.S. officials familiar with the internal deliberations tell a different story. They say the department revoked her award after U.S. officials went through Aro’s social media posts and found she had also frequently criticized President Donald Trump.

“It created a shitstorm of getting her unceremoniously kicked off the list,” said one U.S. diplomatic source familiar with the internal deliberations. “I think it was absolutely the wrong decision on so many levels,” the source said. The decision “had nothing to do with her work.”

The State Department spokesperson said in an email that Aro was “incorrectly notified” that she had been chosen for the award and that it was a mistake that resulted from “a lack of coordination in communications with candidates and our embassies.” “We regret this error. We admire Ms. Aro’s achievements as a journalist, which were the basis of U.S. Embassy Helsinki’s nomination,” the spokesperson said.

Aro received a formal invitation to the award ceremony not from the embassy but from the State Department’s Office of the Chief of Protocol on Feb. 12.

There is no indication that the decision to revoke the award came from the secretary of state or the White House. Officials who spoke to FP have suggested the decision came from lower-level State Department officials wary of the optics of Pompeo granting an award to an outspoken critic of the Trump administration. The department spokesperson did not respond to questions on who made the decision or why.

To U.S. officials who spoke to FP, the incident underscores how skittish some officials—career and political alike—have become over government dealings with vocal critics of a notoriously thin-skinned president. ….In the minds of some diplomats, this has created an atmosphere where lower-level officials self-censor dealings with critics of the administration abroad, even without senior officials weighing in.

Aro said the decision to cancel her award and corresponding trip to the United States caught her completely by surprise. “[When] I was informed about the withdrawal out of the blue, I felt appalled and shocked,” Aro told FP. …

U.S. Cancels Journalist’s Award Over Her Criticism of Trump

Posted in awards, human rights | 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The U.N. Hates Hate Speech More Than It Loves Free Speech

March 4, 2019

In a blog post in Foreign Policy of 28 February J (Executive director of Justitia, a Copenhagen based think tank) tackles the thorny issue of hate speech versus freedom of speech: “The U.N. Hates Hate Speech More Than It Loves Free Speech – The U.N. Secretary General is going soft on one of the most fundamental human rights“. It is an excellent read! Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in human rights | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Are Human Rights Defenders making a comeback? Kenneth Roth thinks so!

January 19, 2019

Kenneth Roth – the executive director of Human Rights Watch – published on 17 January 2019 a long post in Foreign Policy which summarizes his introduction to Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2018. [for last year’s report, see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/01/19/human-rights-watch-and-kenneth-roth-take-a-stand-against-trumps-dictator-friendly-policies/]. “With larger powers in retreat”, he says, “small countries and civil society groups have stepped up—and they have won some significant victories”. Here some large extracts:

A participant holds a banner with photos of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in front of the presidential palace during a demonstration on Dec. 21, 2018.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in books, HRW, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, UN | 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Morocco’s crackdown doesn’t silence human rights defenders

January 17, 2019

On 16 January 2019  (a freelance reporter based in Morocco, who worked as a correspondent at the French media site Mediapart and has written for Orient XXI, Rue89, Al-Monitor, and the Christian Science Monitor) published a long and substantive post in Foreign Policy: “Morocco’s Crackdown Won’t Silence Dissent” She states that across the country, protesters are increasingly willing to criticize the government and the monarchy—even in the face of repression.

A Moroccan draped in the Berber, or Amazigh, flag shouts slogans while marching during a protest against the jailing of Al-Hirak or "Popular Movement" activists in the capital Rabat on July 15, 2018.

When she joined the National Union of Moroccan Students in 1978, Khadija Ryadi knew she’d face hardship. “At that time,” she recalled, “we were constantly followed by the police.” today life may be even harder. “Now not only are we followed but we are also listened to and photographed, and everywhere. The repression has remained, but the instruments have changed. I never feel at ease.”

Recently, Ryadi, who was the president of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights (also known by its French acronym, AMDH) from 2007 to 2013 and won a United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights in 2013, has raised eyebrows. In interviews with the author, she denounced “a return to the Years of Lead”—a reference to the decades of harsh oppression in the 1960s to 1990s under Morocco’s King Hassan II. [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2013/12/05/winners-of-2013-united-nations-human-rights-prizes-announced-today/]

Today’s repression may be much less brutal, but just denouncing the recent crackdown could land critics in jail. Indeed, in recent months, human rights defenders have pointed to a major rise in harassment, arrests, and police violence against activists.

One of them, Abdellah Lefnatsa, said that “achievements such as freedom of expression [and] the right to protest” have started to be rolled back. Over the last two years, over a thousand people have been jailed on politically related charges, according to Youssef Raissouni, an executive director at AMDH.  ……

Another Hirak activist, Mortada Iamrachen, was arrested in November 2017 and later sentenced to five years in prison after making two posts on Facebook…..

Over the summer, meanwhile, Nasser Zefzafi and three other Hirak protest leaders were sentenced to 20 years in prison for “undermining state security.” Protesters staged rallies in Casablanca and Rabat last July to condemn the harsh sentences handed down to them and 49 other Hirak activists and citizen journalists. Now housed in the Oukacha prison in Casablanca, the activists have initiated several hunger strikes to denounce their sentencing and the conditions of their detention. Zefzafi was held more than a year in solitary confinement after his arrest, in violation of U.N. standards, according to Human Rights Watch. [see also; https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/09/30/nominees-for-the-2018-sakharov-prize-announced-by-european-parliament/]

An appeal trial for 42 of the detained—11 have been pardoned by King Mohammed VI since the verdict last June—started in Casablanca on Nov. 14, 2018, but human rights defenders aren’t optimistic. 

….Particularly worrying for the government is the spread of social movements from the big cities to smaller towns, where locals are tired of poor living conditions.

After two miners died on the job in December 2017, residents of Jerada took to the streets to demand an economic alternative to mining coal in unsafe clandestine shafts, which is one of the few options for work there.Now more than 70 people there have been held awaiting trial since March, according to AMDH and the Unified Socialist Party activist Jawad Tlemsani. Among them, 40 have been recently sentenced to up to five years in prison. For now, such incidents are isolated, but they could portend a nationwide protest movement in the near future.

And that may be why the government’s crackdown on recent protests has been harsher in many ways than its reaction to the Arab Spring, even though the activists’ demands are less extreme. The Hirak protesters have not demanded the resignation of the government but rather more spending ….

The government responded by putting back on track an ambitious development plan that it had launched two years before but had then faced significant delays. This is part of a pattern of giving activists some of what they want before cracking down again. Beyond the rise in prosecutions, AMDH and other organizations like it have recently had trouble obtaining funding and official authorizations from local authorities. This year, out of 100 AMDH bureaus, 54 have failed to get their registration documents, which means they cannot legally work. AMDH activists haven’t had to grapple with problems like this since the 1980s, the activist Lefnatsa said, when the organization was banned and its offices closed.

As repression takes root, a culture of protest is slowly emerging throughout the country. And unlike during the Years of Lead, activists and ordinary citizens are prepared to publicly criticize the government and, at times, the monarchy.

“There’s no way this would have been possible” when he started out, Lefnatsa told me, looking back on his 40 years as an activist. “What people say now on social networks, it would have cost them years of prison.” Indeed, during the Years of Lead, activists were imprisoned for years simply for distributing leaflets. Even if protest remains costly today, something fundamental has changed.

“Youngsters who were considered apolitical now speak up against despotism and the unequal distribution of wealth, and ordinary men and women struggle for their social and economic rights in the most remote parts of the country,” Lefnatsa said. “The repression hasn’t succeeded in suppressing the protest movement,” he added. “And that is new.”

Morocco’s Crackdown Won’t Silence Dissent

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/01/morocco-conviction-of-hirak-el-rif-protest-leader-nawal-benaissa-upheld/

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Older posts