Now it’s Officially the Israeli-American Genocide in Gaza

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Democracy, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. Credit: ICC
 
ICC issues arrest warrants for Israel, Hamas leadership: what happens next?

ATLANTA, USA, Nov 27 2024 (IPS) – As of last week, in the wake of the Nov. 21 issuance by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former IDF Defense chief Yoav Gallant, all eyes turned to Washington to see the what the response of Israel’s main backer would be.

The charges were for “Crimes Against Humanity” and “War Crimes” for using starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza, something is explicitly forbidden in international law. A HAMAS operative, Muhammad Deif, who may already be dead, was also charged. One would think that the US should find it easy to agree. But what was the message from the Biden White House?

Press spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said that the United States of America “Rejects the ICC ruling,” as if the International Criminal Court were just an off-beat punk yelling his head off in Lafayette Park just across from the presidential residence. But the prestigious court in the Hague has no option. It is bound to rule according to the law. It’s actions are neither political nor enacted on a whim.

The international law that created the treaty was endorsed by a host of national governments around the world—except for a few, Israel and the United States being the most prominent.

The US is not a State Party (signatory) to the ICC, even though 124 countries have signed the Rome Statute that created the ICC in 2002. Presidents Clinton and Obama tried to get ratification from the US Senate but failed. George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons flatly rejected the idea of endorsing the statute, not wanting any restrictions on their disastrous plan to attack Iraq.

Just the day before at the United Nations, the Security Council voted overwhelmingly 14-1 to demand a cease-fire in Gaza. But the US, by a single vote –because it has veto power under the rules set up in the wake of WW II—blocked the resolution.

The argument that a cease fire would help bring the hostages home, not hinder their release, was urged by the council but fell on deaf ears.

In a shameful action that will be long remembered throughout the world, the US representative, Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood, raised his hand to block the resolution. These two actions in the same week—flat out rejection of the ICC warrants and blocking a Security Council cease fire resolution intended to relieve massive human suffering, when taken together, mean not only that the United States is fully on board with the endless slaughter of civilians in Gaza under continuous Israeli bombing, but it now supports starving women and children too.

This is a stain that will not go away. Protestors in the streets and on university campuses have long been chanting, “Genocide Joe has got to go!” How out of touch is the near-senile President Biden? How corrupt, misguided, and inhumane do you have to be to make that decision, condemning the United States to be forever labeled as contributing to war crimes?

It’s true that Washington has long supplied arms to Israel, including during this conflict, but to support continued starvation and bombing of civilians as a matter of policy is much worse—either deliberately evil or insanity. No fancy negotiating tricks are allowed when innocent lives are at stake.

And where does the recent Democratic nominee for President, Vice President Kamala Harris, stand on all this? Does she have a voice within the Administration? She pledged repeatedly if elected to increase, not decrease, humanitarian aid to Gaza.

What’s wrong with advocating a cease fire after 13 months of massive, one-sided bloodletting that has killed and wounded nearly 150,000 people among the unfortunate citizens of Gaza?

Let’s define terms: A war is when both sides shoot at each other. A Turkey Shoot is different—the Turkey doesn’t have a chance, and sharpshooters just keep shooting to see who has the best aim. A slaughterhouse is when only one side has all the power and just keeps killing on a massive scale.

Israel’s troops have guns and bombs supplied by the United States, Germany, and the UK, and continues to shoot and bomb people in Gaza long after the other side has ceased firing. If the operation is a manhunt, call it a manhunt. If a reprisal, call it a reprisal. If ethnic cleansing, call it that. If the term “Warsaw Ghetto” is fitting, call it that. But don’t call it a righteous battle if the atrocities keep piling up on just one side with no sign of stopping.

Does anybody know how long it has been since HAMAS has fired rockets, or even machine guns at Israeli troops? You would think that if that were the case the slick Israeli lie machine would trumpet that information. So why not cease firing today, not tomorrow?

Why doesn’t the esteemed American President, “Genocide Joe,” just decide for once to do the right thing?

James E. Jennings, PhD is President of Conscience International, an aid organization that has worked in Gaza over many years.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Explainer: Why COP29 Baku Outcome is a Bad Deal for Poor, Vulnerable Nations

Posted on by admin

Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP29, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals | Analysis

COP29

COP 29/CMP 19/CMA 6 closing plenary Credit: Vugar Ibadov/UNFCC

COP 29/CMP 19/CMA 6 closing plenary
Credit: Vugar Ibadov/UNFCC

NAIROBI & BAKU, Nov 26 2024 (IPS) – The culmination of bitter, difficult, and challenging climate negotiations concluded with an announcement from the COP29 Presidency of Azerbaijan of the “agreement of the Baku Finance Goal—a new commitment to channel USD1.3 trillion of climate finance to the developing world each year by 2035.” This is on top of the USD 300 billion that the developed world is to extend to developing nations annually by 2035.

Developed nations appear perturbed by the outrage from the Global South as the COP29 Presidency big-up what is for all intents and purposes a bad deal for vulnerable nations on the frontlines of climate change. Once an annual inflation rate of 6 percent is factored into the new goal, USD 300 billion is not the tripling of funds that is being made out to be.

The Baku deal indicates that “developed countries will lead a new climate finance goal of at least USD 300 billion per annum by 2035 from all sources, as part of a total quantum of at least USD 1.3 trillion per annum by 2035 from all actors, with a roadmap developed in 2025.”

Ambiguous Climate Finance Promises

The promise of a USD 1.3 trillion of climate finance in line with what developing countries wanted rings hollow, for the text does not lay out the road map for how the funds are to be raised, postponing the issue to 2025. Even more concerning, Baku seems to have set things in motion for wealthy nations to distance themselves from their financial responsibility to vulnerable nations in the jaws of a vicious climate crisis.

COP29 text “calls for all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing to developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD1.3 trillion per year by 2035.”

In this, there is a mixture of loans, grants, and private financing. Essentially, the Baku agreement reaffirms that developing nations should be paid to finance their climate actions, but it is vague on who should pay.

Baku to Belém Road Map

For finer details, there is a new road map in place now known as the “Baku to Belém Road Map to 1.3T.” COP29 text indicates that the “Baku to Belém, Brazil’ roadmap is about scaling up climate finance to USD 1.3 trillion before COP30 and that this is to be achieved through financial instruments such as grants, concessional as well as non-debt-creating instruments. In other words, the roadmap is about making everything clear in the coming months.

In climate finance, concessionals are loans. Only that they are a type of financial assistance that offers more favourable terms than the market, such as lower interest rates or grace periods. This is exactly what developing nations are against—being straddled with loans they cannot afford over a crisis they did not cause.

Article 6 of Paris Agreement: Carbon Markets

Beyond climate finance, there are other concerns with the final text. Although it has taken nearly a decade of debate over carbon trading and markets, COP29 Article 6 is complex and could cause more harm than good. On paper, the carbon markets agreements will “help countries deliver their climate plans more quickly and cheaply and make faster progress in halving global emissions this decade, as required by science.”

Although a UN-backed global carbon market with a clear pathway is a good deal, it falls short on the “transparency provision” as the agreement does not address the trust crises compromising current carbon markets. Countries will not be required to release information about their deals before trading and that carbon trading could derail efforts by the industrialized world to reduce emissions as they can continue to pay for polluting, and this will be credited as a “climate action.”

Climate Funds Fall Short

The Loss and Damage Fund seeks to offer financial assistance to countries greatly affected by climate change. There is nonetheless delayed operationalisation and uncertain funding, as COP29 did not define who pays into the fund and who is eligible to claim and draw from the fund.

The Adaptation Fund was set up to help developing countries build resilience and adapt to climate change. Every year, the fund seeks to raise at least USD 300 million but only receives USD 61 million, which is only a small fraction—about one-sixth—of what is required.

Final Text Quiet on Fossil Fuels

The final COP29 text does not mention fossil fuels and makes no reference to the historic COP28 deal to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’. Climate change mitigation means avoiding and reducing emissions of harmful gases into the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels are responsible for the climate crises, but the COP29 text on mitigation is silent on the issue of fossil fuels and does not therefore strengthen the previous COP28 UAE deal. Saudi Arabia was accused of watering down the text by ensuring that “fossil fuels” do not appear in the final agreement. They were successful, as the final text states, “Transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition.”

Earlier, while welcoming delegates to COP29, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev left no one in doubt about his stand on fossil fuels, saying that oil and gas are a “gift from God,” praising the use of natural resources including oil and gas, and castigating the West for condemning fossil fuels while still buying the country’s oil and gas.

Against this backdrop, COP29 negotiations were never going to be easy, and although the Summit overran by about 30 hours more than expected, it was certainly not the longest COP, and it will certainly not be the most difficult as Baku has successfully entrenched bitter divisions and mistrust between the developed and developing world.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Ensuring Violence-Free Homes for Sri Lankan Women

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The AKASA safe house is seen in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. August 2023. Credit: UN Women/Ravindra Rohana

NEW YORK, Nov 25 2024 (IPS) – A woman’s right to live free from violence is upheld by international agreements like the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, observed on November 25th, 2024, serves as a significant platform to raise awareness about gender-based violence. Globally, one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner.

In his message for the 2024 International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, “The epidemic of violence against women and girls shames humanity. Every day, on average, 140 women and girls are killed by someone in their own family.

Around one in three women still experience physical or sexual violence. Almost 30 years since the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action promised to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls — it’s beyond time to deliver”.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health and human rights concern and affects millions of women worldwide, often remaining underreported and behind closed doors. IPV is particularly acute in South Asia where 35% of ever-partnered women reported experiencing IPV in their lifetime, compared to 20% in Western Europe and 21% in high-income Asia Pacific.

The reasons are complex and include a combination of socio-economic structures, patriarchal attitudes, and prevalent social norms that define gender roles. IPV remains a largely hidden and stigmatized issue, with many women suffering in silence in South Asia.

IPV in Sri Lanka is a significant and pervasive issue. An estimated 40% of women aged 15 years or older reported experiencing physical, sexual, emotional, and/or economic violence or controlling behaviors by a partner in their lifetime. Disturbingly, 21% of the population, or about 4.6 million women, are affected by IPV, given that women constitute 52% of Sri Lanka’s 23.1 million population.

These figures reflect reported cases, but IPV is significantly underreported due to fear of stigma, lack of awareness about available support services, and reluctance to involve authorities in family matters. Many women fear retaliation from their abusers or social ostracism if they speak out.

The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), passed in 2005, provides legal protection for victims of domestic violence in Sri Lanka, allowing them to obtain protection orders against their abusers. The PDVA defines domestic violence as “physical or emotional harm done by a spouse, ex-spouse, or cohabiting partner.” However, its effectiveness has been criticized due to issues with enforcement and limited awareness among both victims and law enforcement.

Despite high levels of educational attainment, 73.5 per cent of Sri Lankan women of working age are out of the labor force, compared to just 26.5% of men. This is mainly due to their engagement in household duties, including care work. Aggravating this situation, women on average earn 27 per cent less than men for one hour of work.

Consequently, many women economically depend on their partners, making it hard to leave abusive relationships. Especially in rural areas, they may lack financial resources or social support to escape violence. This financial vulnerability is a key barrier to addressing IPV in Sri Lanka. Empowering women economically and socially can reduce their dependency on abusive partners.

Among Sri Lankan faith-based communities such as Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians, religious leaders are influential authorities on behavior and sources of guidance on proper conduct in relationships, including family and marriage. Therefore, they can play a crucial role in motivating men to cede power and reduce IPV.

This approach, guided more by principles of peace and social justice than by a rights agenda, cannot replace rights-based solutions to end IPV. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage and promote collaboration between faith-based and rights-based organizations to address and end violence against women and girls in Sri Lanka.

Various research shows that the ethnic dimensions of the civil war and the continuing ethnic tensions post-war have worsened the situation for Tamil and Muslim women in Sri Lanka, creating conditions that are likely to keep them entrapped in abusive relationships.

There are also strong associations between IPV and suicidal behavior in Sri Lanka, signaling the need to prioritize violence reduction both on its own and within national suicide prevention strategies.

Empowering women, educating communities, and involving men in the conversation are essential steps toward reducing IPV in Sri Lanka. NGOs like the Women’s Education and Research Centre and international organizations run awareness campaigns to educate people about IPV, its harmful effects, legal rights, and available support services.

These campaigns also engage men and boys in discussions about gender equality and the unacceptability of IPV. The goal is to change societal attitudes that contribute to IPV and make men active partners in promoting non-violent relationships.

In Sri Lanka, several support systems are in place for victims of IPV. Various community organizations and NGOs provide localized support, including shelters and legal aid. The Ministry of Women and Child Affairs operates a toll-free helpline (Dial 1938) that offers counselling and legal support to victims of violence.

Health-sector responses to support women experiencing IPV in Sri Lanka are evolving and currently include two models of integration: GBV desks with facility-level integration, and Mithuru Piyasa, a modified One-Stop Crisis Centre model with some system-wide integration. Additionally, the Ministry of Health has implemented training programs for public health midwives to improve their ability to identify and assist IPV victims.

IPV remains a critical issue in Sri Lanka, influenced by socio-cultural, economic, and legal factors. An effective coordination and information sharing mechanism among the ministries of Health, Women and Child Affairs, and Public Security, at both state and local levels is essential to provide immediate support and empower women experiencing IPV.

Traditional cultural norms in Sri Lanka often view gender roles as rigid, expecting women to be submissive and take on domestic responsibilities. These norms can contribute to the normalization of IPV and limit women’s ability to seek help.

IPV is often seen as a private matter, with victims frequently facing pressure to stay silent. By tackling the economic, political, social, cultural, and other systemic factors that enable IPV, we can create a safer and more equitable environment for all women in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan women deserve the fundamental right to a violence-free home life. Achieving this necessitates a unified approach to challenge and transform harmful social norms, enhance the availability and accessibility of support services, and rigorously enforce existing laws.

Only through these coordinated efforts can we create a safer and more equitable society for all women in Sri Lanka.

Shihana Mohamed, a Sri Lankan national, is a founding member and Coordinator of the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity and Inclusion (UN-ANDI) and a US Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and Equality Now on Advancing the Rights of Women and Girls. She is a dedicated human rights activist and a strong advocate for gender equality and the advancement of women.

The author expresses her views in this article in an entirely unofficial, private, and personal capacity. These views do not reflect those of any organization.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

It’s About our Entire Planet: The Pandemic of Violence Against Women

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

NEW YORK, Nov 25 2024 (IPS) – The 16 Days of Activism to end gender-based violence, started with seeking to eliminate violence against women (VAW). This year’s theme highlights the reality that violence against women and girls is of pandemic proportions. The figures are galling.

References cite how millions of women and girls suffer physical or sexual violence all over the world; 95% of people trafficked for sexual exploitation in Europe are female; every 10 minutes, partners and family members killed a woman intentionally in 2023; one in three women experience violence in their lifetime; 1 in 4 adolescent girls is abused by their partners.

And more. The 16 Days of Activism is an opportunity to revitalize commitments, call for accountability and actions by diverse decision-makers. 2025 will be the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 2025, described by UN Women as a “visionary blueprint for achieving gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights everywhere”.

Apart from the pandemic scale of the violence against women we are living through – without it being properly declared as a pandemic by governmental authorities – and the horrific data which is on the increase, there are a few pieces of this VAW puzzle that bear stressing.

Lead Integrity’s founding Partner and international activist, Dr Fulata Moyo, who is credited with efforts to institutionalize the World Council of Church’s (WCC) Thursdays in Black campaign, and her successor at leading this and executing a Programme on Just Community of Women and Men, at the WCC – Reverend Nicole Ashwood – stress this centrality of unequal power relations.

Dr Moyo is a strong advocate of mentorship, and yet she reminds us that even this process can be misunderstood as a one-way benefit relationship. Instead, she constantly argues that both mentor and mentoree learn from one another. This insistence on awareness of the mutuality of benefit – and its responsibilities – is a means of righting power imbalances not only among individuals, but in families, societies and nations.

Another Lead integrity founding Partner, Grove Harris – also serving as the UN representative of the Temple of Understanding, and is a strong eco-feminist in her own right – argues cogently that the exploitative violence leveraged on our earth, is a reflection of the exploitative violence perpetuated against women. And vice versa.

In other words, we will need to face a reality that we cannot fight the violence against women and girls, without also struggling to eliminate violence against our planet. These are not separate struggles, but integrated ones.

Lead Integrity’s Senior Advisor and Gender expert, Ms. Gehan AbuZeid expounds further to note that VAW is about endemic structural violence which permeates all domains of life, including ecology, economy, politics, and of course, society.

Inbuilt power relations which prioritize the needs, views, and priorities of one set of humans at the expense of ‘others’ means all our institutions are predisposed to violence against those deemed as more vulnerable by the dominant groups.

Violence against women happens not only because of gendered dynamics per se, but because all of power dynamics around us, are inherently based on exploitative relationships.

This leads to another couple of critical observations – ones which are becoming more taboo to speak of, especially in the kinds of times we live in today. Since the root of VAW are exploitative relationships based on unequal power dynamics, then everyone, every institution and every nation, every initiative, is responsible for ending the structural, the social and the personal forms of these interrelated violent dynamics.

In other words, ending VAW is not, and should not, be left for women alone to end it (even when they may work miracles with male and myriad other allies), nor is it only a matter of legislation – as important as that is. And while we are recognizing the principle and reality of collective responsibility, let us also have the courage to acknowledge that women can be violent towards other women too, and some men are fairly vicious against each other which is statistically related to rising VAW, and as the countless wars around us attest to.

As we consider the collective responsibilities, we need to strengthen our multilateral institutions – not only secular ones, but also those which deliberately seek to partner with different civil society organizations, including those who work to mobilize multi faith and multi stakeholder collaborations.

An example of such a multi-stakeholder and global effort is the first Women, Faith and Climate Change Network, launched at the COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. The Network brings together faith-based and secular, women and male allies, working with governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental partner institutions, elevating the influence of female faith leaders (including Indigenous ones) to maximize knowledge and impact, to right the power imbalances in each of these diverse institutions, as they work together to eliminate the violence perpetrated against our planet.

We need to ask ourselves this: by continuing to work – and work hard – within our respective silos (secular, religious, feminist, peacemaking, human rights, business, institutional, individual, national, regional, global, etc.), have we not, inadvertently, failed to address the interrelated forms of violence?

And if so, can the recognition of this pandemic of VAW, push us to work better together at a time when we face much polarization and fear – or are we destined to repeat some of the Covid pandemic’s mistakes? If we do, we risk our peaceful co-existence, and – heaven forbid – we may well risk losing the ability to exist on this planet.

Dr Azza Karam is President and CEO of Lead Integrity, and affiliate Professor at Notre Dame University’s Ansari Center for Religion and Global Engagement.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

‘AI-powered Weapons Depersonalise the Violence, Making It Easier for the Military to Approve More Destruction’

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Nov 22 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the dangers arising from military uses of artificial intelligence (AI) with Sophia Goodfriend, Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Middle East Initiative.

The global rise of AI has raised concerns about its impact on human rights, particularly for excluded groups, with controversial uses ranging from domestic policing and surveillance to ‘kill lists’ such as those used by Israel to identify targets for missile strikes. Digital rights groups are calling for the development of an AI governance framework that prioritises human rights and bans the most dangerous uses of AI. While recent United Nations (UN) resolutions recognise the human rights risks of AI, more decisive action is needed.

Sophia Goodfriend

Why should we be concerned about AI and its current and potential uses?

AI is being rapidly integrated into military operations around the world, particularly in weapons systems, intelligence gathering and decision-making. Its increasing autonomy reduces human oversight, raising serious concerns and sci-fi fears of machines making life-and-death decisions without meaningful human intervention.

AI-based technologies such as drones, automated weapons and advanced targeting systems are now part of military arsenals. The military’s increasing reliance on these systems raises significant concerns, as they are largely unregulated under international law. The level of surveillance these technologies rely on violates privacy protections under international law and many national civil rights laws.

The rapid development and deployment of these technologies is outpacing regulation, leaving the public largely unaware of their implications. Without proper oversight, AI could be misused in ways that cause widespread harm and evade accountability. We urgently need to regulate the military use of AI and ensure it is consistent with international law and humanitarian principles.

In addition, faulty or biased data can lead to devastating mistakes, raising serious ethical and legal questions. And the decisions made by these systems can undermine the principles of proportionality and distinction in warfare, putting civilian lives at risk.

What’s an example of how AI is currently being used?

The Israeli military is using AI-assisted targeting systems to identify and strike targets in Gaza. These systems analyse huge amounts of data collected through drones, satellites, surveillance cameras, social media and phone hacks to identify potential targets, locate them and decide where and when people should be killed.

AI-generated ‘kill lists’ raise serious concerns. Flawed or biased data has already led to devastating mistakes, with journalists and humanitarian workers killed in strikes. There have also been allegations that the military has expanded its definition of who or what constitutes a valid target, allowing attacks on people or places that may not meet the standards set by international law.

These systems operate at an unprecedented speed and scale, creating a huge number of targets. They have the potential to cause widespread destruction without thorough oversight. Soldiers operating in Gaza have as little as 20 seconds to approve targets that include Hamas militants, but also people who wouldn’t be considered valid military targets under international laws of war and human rights standards.

What does this mean for moral responsibility over the damage caused?

AI-assisted targeting technologies such as the Lavender system are not fully autonomous. They still require human oversight. This is a critical point because these technologies are only as destructive as the people in charge. It all depends on the decisions made by military leaders, and these decisions can either comply with or violate international human rights law.

At the same time, the use of machines to target and destroy can depersonalise violence, making it easier for military personnel to authorise more destruction. By outsourcing decision-making to AI, there’s a risk of abdicating moral responsibility. This technological approach makes military action seem more efficient and rational, which can help justify each bombing with a seemingly logical rationale, but it also dehumanises the civilian casualties and widespread devastation that follow.

Are current AI governance frameworks sufficient to protect human rights?

The short answer is no: current AI governance frameworks fall short in protecting human rights, particularly in military applications. While most states agree that AI-driven weapons – from fully autonomous to AI-assisted ones – should comply with international human rights law, there’s no global framework to ensure this happens.

This has led to calls for more comprehensive and enforceable rules, and there have been some positive steps. For example, civil society groups and researchers successfully pushed for a ban on fully autonomous weapons in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which was supported by over 100 states. As a result, the UN Secretary-General has called for a legally binding treaty to be adopted in 2026 to completely ban fully autonomous weapons, which are powered by AI but have no human oversight of their operations.

The European Union (EU) has also taken action, banning some military AI applications such as social scoring systems – which give people ratings based on their social behaviour – as part of its AI Act. However, the EU still lacks specific rules for military AI.

Organisations such as the Future of Life Institute, Human Rights Watch and Stop Killer Robots have been instrumental in pushing for change. But they’re facing growing challenges as Silicon Valley tech CEOs and venture capitalists push for faster AI development with fewer regulations. This is worrying, as these powerful figures will now have more influence over AI policy under a new Trump administration.

What role should AI companies play in ensuring compliance with human rights principles?

Companies have a critical role to play. In recent years, many of the leading companies, such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, have made public statements about their commitment to human rights. OpenAI, for example, has called for the creation of a watchdog similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and its founders have pledged not to allow their technology to be used for military purposes. Amazon, Google and Microsoft also have fair use policies, which they claim ensure their technologies are used in accordance with human rights principles.

But in practice, these policies often fall short, particularly when it comes to military applications. Despite their claims, many of these companies have sold their technologies to military forces, and the extent of their involvement in military AI development is often unclear. Just a few weeks ago, The Intercept reported that the US military’s Africa Command had purchased OpenAI software through Microsoft. We also know the Israeli military used Google cloud services to target bombs in Gaza and Amazon web services to store classified surveillance data on civilians in the Palestinian territories.

This has sparked protests within the companies involved, with workers staging walkouts and demanding greater transparency and accountability. While these protests are important, AI companies can ultimately only do so much to ensure their technologies are used ethically. We need stronger, more comprehensive international laws on the military use of AI, and governments must take responsibility for ensuring these laws are enforced at the national level.

At the same time, many tech CEOs, such as Elon Musk, have moved away from their previous commitment to human rights and are more aligned with right-wing political leaders like Trump. Some CEOs, such as Peter Thiel of PayPal and Alex Karp of Palantir Technologies, argue that private companies need to work closely with the military to maintain US technological superiority. This has created tensions between human rights advocates and tech giants, highlighting the need for stronger regulatory frameworks to hold these companies accountable and prevent AI being used in ways that undermine human rights.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
LinkedIn
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Human rights take a backseat in AI regulation CIVICUS Lens 16.Jan.2024
AI: ‘The biggest challenges are the biases and lack of transparency of algorithms’ Interview with Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team 24.Aug.2023
AI regulation: ‘There must be a balance between promoting innovation and protecting rights’ Interview with Nadia Benaissa 25.Jul.2023

  Source

Climate Change in Azerbaijan is Putting Women at Increased Risk of Gender-Based Violence

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: UN Women

PARIS, Nov 22 2024 (IPS) – Climate change exacerbates existing gender inequalities and gender-based violence. At COP29 in Azerbaijan, governments have been urged to prioritize gender-responsive climate policies that address the specific needs of women and girls, and serious concerns have been raised about backtracking on women’s rights during these crucial negotiations on climate action.

In Azerbaijan, extreme weather events made worse by global warming and poor environmental management are heightening the risks women and girls face. As the frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters increase, more families are being left vulnerable, accelerating the need for targeted interventions.

Clean World Social Union participated in COP29 to address the critical intersection of gender inequality and the climate crisis, advocating for policies that prioritize the needs and rights of women and girls in the face of environmental challenges.

Clean World Social Union is one of only two civil society organizations in Azerbaijan providing specialist accommodation and support to women escaping gender-based violence. They operate a shelter in the capital city, Baku, housing up to 60 women and children. A second shelter in Ganja, managed by the Public Union “Tamas,” accommodates 25 residents.

Clean World Social Union collaborates with the international women’s rights organization Equality Now to strengthen the legal rights of women and girls in Azerbaijan.

Leyla Suleymanova

Coordinator Leyla Suleymanova spoke to Equality Now about how climate-induced displacement is impacting women in the country and why the government urgently needs to do more in response.

What are some of the ways that climate change is affecting women and girls in Azerbaijan?

Climate change is definitely making women more vulnerable to gender-based violence. We’ve worked with many women from rural areas whose families have lost their homes and livelihoods due to floods, drought, and other environmental crises. People become homeless, their lives have been devastated. Before, they had opportunities to earn money to improve their lives, but now they don’t.

This is forcing people to migrate and is pushing them into urban areas. Gender-based violence increases because when people become poorer, it puts pressure on families who cannot earn a living, and men can become more violent. Every day, we receive hundreds of calls from women, but due to the limited capacity of our shelters, we have to refuse many.

After extreme climate events, many women migrate alone to urban centers like Baku to support their families. However, some do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to find employment and earn money. Displacement caused by ecological crisis isolates women from their social networks and support systems, and makes them more vulnerable to abuse. As well as domestic violence, we have seen increases in commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking.

How is Azerbaijan’s government responding to the impact that climate change is having on women in the country?

In Azerbaijan, there is some understanding about how climate change impacts women and girls, but not enough. And while the government is doing some things about climate change, it’s not making the connection between ecological crisis, gender issues, and gender-based violence.

Changes in legislation and punishment for child marriage are getting tougher, but I think the ecological crisis is making the situation worse. With people becoming poorer and life getting harder, this connects to child marriage. Some families think if they have a girl who they cannot afford to provide food and education for, she should be married off quickly.

In cases of gender-based violence after extreme weather events, women often don’t have financial support, don’t know who to turn to, and may have psychological issues. It is sometimes very difficult to support these victims as they need free and regular assistance, but there are many we cannot help because of limited resources. And when there are floods, there is a big increase in the number of women needing help but we cannot provide so much support.

I have not heard of any official strategies or action plans to improve the situation for women when an ecological crisis happens. Government strategies should include implementation and coordination to address women’s issues. Without this, it is difficult to deal with these problems.

What action on climate change to support women is needed from governments?

Women and girls are being directly and disproportionately affected by the ecological crisis and we have to raise this with governments and other key stakeholders. There is a critical opportunity to address the unique challenges by developing and implementing comprehensive frameworks and gender-responsive strategies that tackle both the immediate and longer-term impacts.

Vocational training programs can help women adapt to climate change by equipping them with skills for sustainable livelihoods. This is particularly crucial for women in rural areas who may need to migrate to urban centers, where employment opportunities are more accessible. Providing these tools empowers women to rebuild their lives and communities while fostering resilience against climate-related challenges.

It is equally important to increase women’s participation in decision-making processes related to climate policies. By including women’s perspectives and experiences, governments can create more equitable and effective solutions. Gender equality must be central to these discussions, ensuring women’s voices shape policies addressing ecological and societal impacts.

Strengthening support systems is another vital step. Expanding access to psychological counseling, legal aid, and safe shelters for women and girls will address the immediate fallout of climate shocks. Additionally, building local capacity to meet the needs of women affected by these events will ensure long-term sustainability.

Public awareness campaigns are necessary to educate communities about the gendered impacts of climate change, and women should be given information about who they can turn to for support when their rights have been violated. Initiatives can shift societal attitudes, promoting a greater understanding of women’s vulnerabilities and the need for protective measures.

The COP29 summit in Azerbaijan underscored the urgency of integrating gender issues into climate action. Coordination among government agencies, civil society organizations, and international partners is essential to ensure these efforts are effective, inclusive, and provide women and girls with protection in the face of an evolving climate crisis.

Maithreyi Kamalanathan, Equality Now

IPS UN Bureau

  Source