Thai authorities should immediately investigate the murder of Prajob Nao-opas, a prominent environmentalist in Chachoengsao province, Human Rights Watch said today, 27 February 2013.
The government’s measures to protect human rights defenders, including environmentalists, who stand up for their communities have consistently proved to be inadequate. On February 25, 2013, at around 2 p.m., a gunman shot 43-year-old Prajob four times at a garage on the Phanom Sarakham-Ban Sang road as he was waiting for mechanics to repair his pickup truck. Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that Prajob was seriously wounded from the 11mm bullets and died while being rushed to the hospital by villagers at the shooting scene. The gunman escaped in a getaway car. “The cold-blooded killing of Prajob marks yet another example of the fundamental failure of Thai authorities to protect activists who risk their lives while defending their communities,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “The government must undertake a serious investigation to bring those responsible for his death to justice, regardless of the status or political affiliation of the killers.”
Since February 2012, Prajob had led villagers in a campaign to expose the dumping of toxic waste in Chachoengsao province’s Phanom Sarakham and Plaeng Yao districts. Many ponds in the area have been filled with dangerous chemicals from industrial estates along Thailand’s eastern seaboard. The Thai government took little action until Prajob managed to get the issue into the national news headlines in August 2012. Only then did the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation DSI announce that it would treat the chemical waste disposal in Chachoengsao province as a special and urgent case under the DSI’s purview. In December 2012, Prajob told his family that he had received warnings from the Chachoengsao police that there might be an attempt on his life. Since then, he noticed and reported to the police that he was frequently followed and photographed by unidentified men on motorcycles. Despite these explicit threats, no one at either provincial or national level proposed any protective measures for Prajob. Read the rest of this entry »
With apologies to the early viewers of my post of today regarding the Geneva film festival and the showing of a documentary in the UN building on alleged war crimes committed by both sides in the conflict, the link to the Sri Lankan Ambassador’s letter was faulty. This is now repaired with: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/465065/Letter-to-the-President-Human-Rights-Council-2.pdf.
Mexico’s security forces have participated in widespread enforced disappearances, Human Rights Watch said in a special report released on 20 February 2013. Virtually none of the victims have been found or those responsible brought to justice, exacerbating the suffering of families of the disappeared, Human Rights Watch found. The 176-page report, “Mexico’s Disappeared: The Enduring Cost of a Crisis Ignored,” documents nearly 250 “disappearances” from December 2006 to December 2012. In 149 of those cases, Human Rights Watch found compelling evidence of enforced disappearances, involving the participation of state agents.
“President Peña Nieto has inherited one of worst crises of disappearances in the history of Latin America,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “While his administration has announced some important measures to assist victims, it has yet to take the steps necessary to ensure that those responsible for these horrific crimes are brought to justice.”
Human Rights Watch found evidence that members of all branches of the security forces carried out enforced disappearances: the Army, the Navy, and the federal and local police. In some cases, such as a series of more than 20 enforced disappearances by Navy personnel in June and July 2011 in Nuevo León and Tamaulipas, the common modus operandi of the crimes, the scale of the operations, and the inconsistent accounts by the Navy suggest the crimes may have been planned and coordinated. In over 60 cases, Human Rights Watch found evidence that state agents collaborated directly with organized crime groups to “disappear” people and extort payments from their families. For example, evidence indicates that local police in Pesquería, Nuevo León arbitrarily detained 19 construction workers in May 2011 and handed them over to an organized crime group. The men have not been seen since….. Read the rest of this entry »
Human Rights Watch Uploaded on this video some time back on 20 April 2011, but I had missed it. Insiders will recognize the face and voice of Reed Brody, who has made chasing dictators (such as Baby Doc and Hissene Habré (see below) his life’s vocation.Read the rest of this entry »
Human Rights Watch issues a video and press release concerning a series of death threats made over the last four months to two lawyers who represent clients accused of homosexual conduct. Human Rights Watch on 13 February 2013 sent an open letter to President Paul Biya. Read the rest of this entry »
In a long but interesting blog post in the Huffington News of 4 February 2013 Malik Siraj Akbar, takes issue with Pakistan’s reaction to criticism on it human rights record by organisations such as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW). “A pack of lies” is Pakistan army’s favorite defensive phrase whenever it is blamed for committing human rights abuses or covertly sponsoring Islamic extremist organizations. On December 13, 2012, the Pakistan army described an Amnesty International report, The Hands of Cruelty, as “a pack of lies”. On February 2nd, the Pakistan army once again used its favorite ‘a pack of lies” phrase to reject the Human Right Watch World Report 2013. The army says the report is “propaganda driven and totally biased” which is “yet another attempt to malign Pakistan and its institutions through fabricated and unverified reports, completely favouring an anti-Pakistan agenda.”
The author then goes on to explain the powerful position of the army and why it reacts so vehemently. The part that is of special interest for the protection of human rights defenders follows:
“ThePakistan military does not solely suffice with rebuttals. It oftentimes turns unimaginably nasty against those who question its authority. In this case, the H.R.W.’s Pakistan Director Ali Dayan Hasan, a widely respected human rights defender, has become the focus of a malicious and misleading campaign in the national media. The military has unleashed a media trial of Mr. Hasan with the help of Pakistan’s largest media group, the Jang, questioning his integrity and even patriotism to the extent that it now raises genuine concerns about his personal safety and that of his family.
The News International, an English language newspaper published by the Jang media group, has become a tool in the hands of the military in the extremely dangerous campaign against Mr. Hasan. Last year, the newspaper bullied the human rights activist so much that it even published his U.S., Pakistan and London U.K. telephone numbers. This was a clear violation of journalistic standards but the newspaper apparently did so in order to encourage Islamic fundamentalists to directly threaten him on the phone numbers printed in the newspaper.
Ahmed Noorani, a young, angry and highly opinionated journalist, has been bullying Mr. Hasan and his organization for more than one year in his dispatches which, whenever attacking the H.R.W., hardly undergo the routine process of fact-checking, language correction and copy editing which is essential to sift opinion from reporting.
On February 24, 2014, the Citizens for Free and Responsible Media, a group of professional Pakistani journalists, sent a letter to the publisher and top editors of the News International, to express “our dismay at the unethical and false reporting in your paper … that is not only inaccurate and based on lies, but also endangers the life and safety of a Pakistani citizen.” One year later, the newspaper still continues to publish unsubstantiated personal attacks against Mr. Hasan which seem to be caused by the reporter’s personal dislike for the H.R.W.’s Pakistan head.
The Pakistani military and sections of the media must stop harassing Mr. Hasan. Such childish and unprofessional behavior does not help Pakistan’s democracy. Reports issued by H.R.W. and other international think-tanks and human rights groups are professional analyses of different countries. It is absolutely irresponsible and unethical to respond to such criticism with personal attacks on individual professionals affiliated with these organizations. It amounts to shooting the messenger. In a countries like Pakistan Mr. Hasan is a rare breed of bravery and hope for millions of citizens who want their rights to be respected and protected by their government. Human rights activists and journalists in Pakistan risk their lives on a daily basis to speak up for the citizens’ democratic rights and Pakistan’s largest media outlet should appreciate courageous Pakistan rights activists, such as Mr. Hasan, instead of endangering their lives.”
Human Rights Watch (HRW) – one of the world’s leading NGOs and a member of the MEA Jury – just published its 23rd annual Report. In 655 pages it summarizes human rights conditions in more than 90 countries worldwide in 2012. It reflects the extensive investigative work that Human Rights Watch staff has undertaken during the year, often in close partnership with domestic human rights defenders.
Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, wrote in her blog through Al-Jazeera, on 9 January 2013, a very informative piece under the title: “Human Rights Watch: Time to stand with human rights defenders” with the provocative byline: It is disappointing to see HRW’s unwillingness to stand with those who are working to promote and defend human rights.
In short, the pro-Israeli, UN-bashing UN Watch discovered that the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, US lawyer Richard Falk, was still ‘on the Board’ of HRW. HRW quickly replied that he was only a member of HRW’s local support committee in Santa Barbara, California, where he lives and that it was an oversight that he still held this honorary position and that it was rectified (“longstanding policy, applied many times, that no official from any government or UN agency can serve on any Human Rights Watch committee or its Board. It was an oversight on our part that we did not apply that policy in Richard Falk’s case several years ago when he assumed his UN position”). UN Watch of course cried victory implying that Falk was expelled an enemy of human rights or because he is anti-Semitic.
The author of the blog finds fault with HRW’s meek response that did indeed not amount to a strong defense of Richard Falk’s credentials, impartiality and expertise. Should HRW not have made clear that substantively it stands with Richard Falk, that he was removed for technical reasons only and would be welcomed back as soon as he ceases to be UN Rapporteur? These are policy question that each NGO should answer for itself but in the context of UN Watch’s obsession to undermine the work of the UN in general and Richard Falk in particular a more robust stance would have been useful. I think that the similarity – even confusion – in name should also have led HRW to take a tougher public stand.
Phyllis Bennis concludes with: “Given his Middle East staff’s consistent work, there is no question that Ken Roth and the HRW board understand that human rights criticism of Israeli occupation is well-grounded in fact, and that such criticism remains a crucial element in changing the public, media and policymaking discourse in the United States. If we are ever to have any hope of changing US government policy in Palestine-Israel towards one grounded in human rights and international law, consistent human rights criticism and a willingness to stand with human rights defenders like Richard Falk when they face attack, remain crucial tools – for all human rights activists, including the leadership of Human Rights Watch.”
The United Arab Emirates should swiftly end the arbitrary detention and harassment of its critics in line with its obligations as a recently elected member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, say a number of NGOs In an open letter to UAE President Sheikh Khalifa Al Nahyan, Human Rights Watch, the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, and the West African Human Rights Defenders Network urge the UAE to make reforms in the following key areas.
Cease arbitrary detentions and respect the right to fair trial
Respect the right to freedom of expression and opinion
End the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in detention
Implement key recommendations of treaty bodies
Respect the fundamental rights of migrant workers and stateless.
The UAE secured its position on the Human Rights Council on November 12, 2012, after standing unopposed for one of the five vacant seats reserved for Asian states. The UAE’s election to the council coincides with a rapidly deteriorating human rights situation domestically, which led to the European Parliament expressing “great concern” in a resolution adopted on October 26. “Now that the UAE has been elected to the Human Rights Council, it’s high time for real improvements in the human rights situation in the country,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The UAE should mark its election by ending arbitrary detention of 63 political detainees and taking steps to protect the rights of migrant workers.”
Indeed it is good that the NGOs remind the UAE’s rulers that a commitment to human rights entails a commitment to take concrete steps, legislative and otherwise, to uphold the principles and standards of human rights law. These steps should clearly be more than the donations recently made (reported on 16 November) to the United Nations including:
– $10,000 for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture;
– $30,000 for the United Nations Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of slavery; and….
– $50,000 for the Trust Fund to Support the Activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights!
In a letter to the editor of the Guardian of 8 November 2012, Andrew Lovatt puts the question very clearly:
Countries that sell arms to states that have repeatedly violated the human rights of their people should receive universal condemnation from their own citizens for the role they play in furthering the misery and bloodshed around the globe, and Britain’s sale of fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and the UAE should be no exception. Human Rights Watch has reported numerous human rights abuses conducted by both states, which have included the assault and intimidation of nonviolent human rights defenders, political activists and civil society actors in an attempt to suppress freedom of expression and protect the regimes from democratic change.
Britain’s long-standing international support for democracy and human rights has already been undermined by the sale of 72 Typhoons to Saudi Arabia. Should Britain prop up these oppressive states further by putting an extra £6bn worth of military hardware into their hands, its position will rightly be viewed as hypocritical by the rest of the world. Andrew Lovatt Market Drayton, Shropshire
“
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 