Remembering Jimmy Carter: a UN Perspective

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Children on the Frontline, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Carter was a man of decency and integrity who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy. Credit: Courtesy Kul Chandra Gautam

 
Former US President Jimmy Carter, a leader of impeccable integrity and decency who devoted his life to promoting peace and democracy worldwide. I recall his contribution to the peace process in Nepal and his leadership in combatting deadly diseases in Africa.
 
Jimmy Carter enthusiastically supported the child survival campaign led by UNICEF. He had nominated Jim Grant to be the Executive Director of UNICEF and said that it was one of the most important decisions of his presidency.

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Jan 2 2025 (IPS) – Former American President Jimmy Carter was a man of peace and principles. He presided over a tumultuous period in American history from 1977 to 1981, working hard to restore trust in government after the Watergate scandal and the divisive era of the Vietnam War. He brokered a landmark peace deal between Israel and Egypt and negotiated a historic treaty to hand over the Panama Canal to Panama.

Carter, a champion of human rights both in the US and around the world, passed away at 100 on December 29, 2024.

More than any recent American president, Carter pressed gently but firmly on autocratic regimes worldwide to respect human rights and the rule of law. When he led the country with immense moral authority, it encouraged many human rights advocates, while dictators worried about the US sanctions.

At home, Carter got many progressive legislations passed in areas of consumer protection, welfare reforms and the appointment of women and minorities in America’s judiciary. However, he had difficulties managing the US economy, the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And in the 1980 Presidential election, when he lost his bid to Ronald Reagan, his active political career came to an end.

Kul Chandra Gautam

But he didn’t retire to a comfortable life, rather, he embarked on a noble mission as one of the world’s highly respected elder statesmen, deeply committed to promoting democracy and human rights. He founded the Carter Center with a motto of “Waging Peace, Fighting Disease and Building Hope”.

With his team, he worked tirelessly to help resolve conflicts, monitor elections and improve human health through campaigns to eliminate several neglected diseases afflicting the poorest people worldwide, particularly in Africa.

“For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights and to promote economic and social development,” Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Links with UNICEF and Nepal

Carter greatly admired UNICEF Executive Director James Grant and strongly supported the UNICEF-led global child survival and development campaign. Further, the organisation was a key partner in the Carter-led global campaign to eradicate a debilitating disease called dracunculiasis or Guinea-worm disease.

My first substantive meeting with Carter took place on August 3, 1995, at an event in Washington, DC, organised jointly by the Carter Center, USAID, WHO and UNICEF to mark the 95 percent reduction in Guinea worm cases worldwide and to recommit to its total eradication. I had a long and fruitful discussion with Carter on strengthening our collaboration in the global campaign to eradicate Guinea-worm disease.

In February 2004, I joined President Carter and WHO Director-General JW Lee on a 3-day field visit to observe and advocate for Guinea-worm eradication in Ghana. I learned about Carter’s humble personality, deep commitment to many worthy causes and impressive advocacy skills.

In our informal interactions, we often talked about Nepal.

Carter’s involvement in Nepal

Carter visited Nepal twice to observe Nepal’s Constituent Assembly Elections. He advised Nepali leaders, including the Election Commission, based on his worldwide experience and credibility in observing elections and conflict resolution. Over the years, the Carter Center produced several reports on Nepal dealing with issues related to the peace process, challenges in drafting Nepal’s Constitution and other important issues of social justice and equity.

I instinctively supported Carter’s noble efforts to promote peace, democracy and development. However, like everybody else, Carter was human and fallible, and some aspects of the Carter Center’s reports on Nepal were flawed.

In particular, Carter’s hasty verdict that Nepal’s first Constituent Assembly election was free, fair and peaceful ignored the fact that there was an unusually high degree of intimidation in many rural constituencies. The non-Maoist parties’ candidates were prevented from campaigning, and voters were threatened with physical violence for weeks preceding the actual voting.

There were well-intentioned but inaccurate analyses of Nepal’s socio-political dynamics by the Carter Center, the International Crisis Group, and even the United Nations. In their effort to appear “balanced and even-handed”, they gave the undue benefit of the doubt to the progressive-sounding rhetoric of the Maoists, ignoring their violent and corrupt practices.

Carter witnessed the insincerity and duplicity of the Maoists when they initially welcomed the 2013 election for the second Constituent Assembly but then denounced it as rigged and unfair when the results showed that they had suffered a humiliating loss.

Unlike during the first CA election, Carter took the necessary time to analyse the second CA election better. He left somewhat sobered by a deeper understanding of the Maoists’ opportunistic and undemocratic nature.

A man of faith and integrity

Jimmy Carter was a deeply religious and spiritual man who often turned to his faith during his political career. But as a progressive man and defender of human rights and gender equality, he found himself at odds with his Southern Baptist Church when it opposed gender equality, citing a few selected verses from the Bible that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and must not be allowed to serve as priests.

Carter protested and took a painful decision to sever ties with his Baptist Church, saying that parts of its rigid doctrine violated the basic premises of his Christian faith. He wrote to his fellow Baptists and published an op-ed article “Losing my religion for equality”.

Carter had a philosophical and spiritual perspective on death. As he suffered from multiple bouts of cancer treatment, he remarked, “I didn’t ask God to let me live, but I just asked God to give me a proper attitude toward death. I found that I was absolutely and completely at ease with death”.

May Carter’s noble soul rest in eternal peace.

Source: Kathmandu Post, Nepal

Kul Chandra Gautam is a distinguished diplomat, development professional, and a former senior official of the United Nations. Currently, he serves on the Boards of several international and national organizations, charitable foundations and public-private partnerships. Previously, he served in senior managerial and leadership positions with the UN in several countries and continents in a career spanning over three decades. As a former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, he has extensive experience in international diplomacy, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Civil Society Trends for 2025: Nine Global Challenges, One Reason for Hope

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Labour, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

LONDON / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 24 2024 (IPS) – It’s been a tumultuous year, and a tough one for struggles for human rights. Civil society’s work to seek social justice and hold the powerful to account has been tested at every turn. Civil society has kept holding the line, resisting power grabs and regressive legislation, calling out injustice and claiming some victories, often at great cost. And things aren’t about to get any easier, as key challenges identified in 2024 are likely to intensify in 2025.

Andrew Firmin

1. More people are likely to be exposed to conflict and its consequences, including humanitarian and human rights disasters, mass displacement and long-term trauma. The message of 2024 is largely one of impunity: perpetrators of conflict, including in Israel and Russia, will be confident they can resist international pressure and escape accountability. While there may be some kind of ceasefire in Gaza or halt to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, those responsible for large-scale atrocities are unlikely to face justice. Impunity is also likely to prevail in the conflicts taking place largely off the global radar, including in Myanmar and Sudan. There will also be growing concern about the use of AI and automated weapons in warfare, a troublingly under-regulated area.

As recent events in Lebanon and Syria have shown, changing dynamics, including shifting calculations made by countries such as Iran, Israel, Russia, Turkey and the USA, mean that frozen conflicts could reignite and new ones could erupt. As in Syria, these shifts could create sudden moments of opportunity; the international community and civil society must respond quickly when these come.

Inés M. Pousadela

2. The second Trump administration will have a global impact on many current challenges. It’s likely to reduce pressure on Israel, hamper the response to the climate crisis, put more strain on already flawed and struggling global governance institutions and embolden right-wing populists and nationalists the world over. These will bring negative consequences for civic space – the space for civil society, which depends on the freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly. Funding for civil society is also likely to be drastically reduced as a result of the new administration’s shifting priorities.

3. 2025 is the year that states are required to develop new plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement. The process will culminate in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, likely the world’s last chance to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. This will only happen if states stand up to fossil fuel companies and look beyond narrow short-term interests. Failing that, more of the debate may come to focus on adaptation. The unresolved question of who will pay for climate transition will remain central. Meanwhile, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and floods can be expected to continue to devastate communities, impose high economic costs, drive migration and exacerbate conflicts.

4. Globally, economic dysfunction is likely to increase, with more people struggling to afford basic necessities, increasingly including housing, as prices continue to rise, with climate change and conflict among the causes. The gap between the struggling many and the ultra-wealthy few will become more visible, and anger at rising prices or taxes will drive people – particularly young people deprived of opportunities – onto the streets. State repression will often follow. Frustration with the status quo means people will keep looking for political alternatives, a situation right-wing populists and nationalists will keep exploiting. But demands for labour rights, particularly among younger workers, will also likely increase, along with pressure for policies such as wealth taxes, a universal basic income and a shorter working week.

5. A year when the largest number of people ever went to the polls has ended – but there are still plenty of elections to come. Where elections are free and fair, voters are likely to keep rejecting incumbents, particularly due to economic hardship. Right-wing populists and nationalists are likely to benefit the most, but the tide will eventually turn: once they’ve been around long enough to be perceived as part of the political establishment, they too will see their positions threatened, and they can be expected to respond with authoritarianism, repression and the scapegoating of excluded groups. More politically manipulated misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and anti-migrant rhetoric can be expected as a result.

6. Even if developments in generative AI slow as the current model reaches the limits of the human-generated material it feeds on, international regulation and data protection will likely continue to lag behind. The use of AI-enabled surveillance, such as facial recognition, against activists is likely to increase and become more normalised. The challenge of disinformation is likely to intensify, particularly around conflicts and elections.

Several tech leaders have actively taken the side of right-wing populists and authoritarians, putting their platforms and wealth at the service of their political ambitions. Emerging alternative social media platforms offer some promise but are likely to face similar problems as they grow.

7. Climate change, conflict, economic strife, repression of LGBTQI+ identities and civil and political repression will continue to drive displacement and migration. Most migrants will remain in difficult and underfunded conditions in global south countries. In the global north, right-wing shifts are expected to drive more restrictive and repressive policies, including the deportation of migrants to countries where they may be at risk. Attacks on civil society working to defend their rights, including by assisting at sea and land borders, are also likely to intensify.

8. The backlash against women’s and LGBTQI+ rights will continue. The US right wing will continue to fund anti-rights movements in the global south, notably in Commonwealth African countries, while European conservative groups will continue to export their anti-rights campaigns, as some Spanish organisations have long done throughout Latin America. Disinformation efforts from multiple sources, including Russian state media, will continue to influence public opinion. This will leave civil society largely on the defensive, focused on consolidating gains and preventing setbacks.

9. As a result of these trends, the ability of civil society organisations and activists to operate freely will remain under pressure in the majority of countries. Just when its work is most needed, civil society will face growing restrictions on fundamental civic freedoms, including in the form of anti-NGO laws and laws that label civil society as agents of foreign powers, the criminalisation of protests and increasing threats to the safety of activists and journalists. Civil society will have to devote more of its resources to protecting its space, at the expense of the resources available to promote and advance rights.

10. Despite these many challenges, civil society will continue to strive on all fronts. It will continue to combine advocacy, protests, online campaigns, strategic litigation and international diplomacy. As awareness grows of the interconnected and transnational nature of the challenges, it will emphasise solidarity actions that transcend national boundaries and make connections between different struggles in different contexts.

Even in difficult circumstances, civil society achieved some notable victories in 2024. In the Czech Republic, civil society’s efforts led to a landmark reform of rape laws, and in Poland they resulted in a law making emergency contraception available without prescription, overturning previous restrictive legislation. After extensive civil society advocacy, Thailand led the way in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality law, while Greece became the first predominantly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage

People defended democracy. In South Korea, people took to the streets in large numbers to resist martial law, while in Bangladesh, protest action led to the ousting of a longstanding authoritarian government. In Guatemala, a president committed to fighting corruption was sworn in after civil society organised mass protests to demand that powerful elites respect the election results, and in Venezuela, hundreds of thousands organised to defend the integrity of the election, defeated the authoritarian government in the polls and took to the streets in the face of severe repression when the results weren’t recognised. In Senegal, civil society mobilised to prevent an attempt to postpone an election that resulted in an opposition win.

Civil society won victories in climate and environmental litigation – including in Ecuador, India and Switzerland – to force governments to recognise the human rights impacts of climate change and do more to reduce emissions and curb pollution. Civil society also took to the courts to pressure governments to stop arms sales to Israel, with a successful verdict in the Netherlands and others pending.

In 2025, the struggle continues. Civil society will keep carrying the torch of hope that a more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable world is possible. This idea will remain as important as the tangible impact we’ll continue to achieve despite the difficult circumstances.

Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The two are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

We Can and Must Do Our Best

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Education Cannot Wait. Future of Education is here, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Yasmine Sherif with children at a school in Ethiopia

NEW YORK, Dec 20 2024 (IPS) – As 2024 comes to a close, I dare to say that this has been an especially gruesome year for millions upon millions of young children, their parents and their teachers. The world has witnessed one horrific crisis of cruelty, dispossession and human suffering after another.

Ukraine has entered its worst winter, suffering a brutal war with 65% of its energy supplies destroyed. While the West Bank is increasingly under attack, Gaza is still under bombardment, 1 million Palestinians lack shelter in the cold and, as the Under-Secretary-General and Emergency Relief Coordinator for OCHA, Tom Fletcher, stated, “Gaza is apocalyptic right now.”

Meanwhile, the gruesome internal armed conflict in Sudan rages on, having caused over 11 million internally displaced and over 3 million refugees in neighboring countries. Each carries the yoke of profound human suffering. From Lebanon, Yemen and the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh to the Sahel and across sub-Saharan Africa, millions of children have very little hope left for a future.

Girls in Afghanistan beyond grade 6 remain shackled to their homes, banned from continuing their learning. Countless children have to live with the life-long consequences of surviving rape and brutal sexual violence – sometimes as mere babies – in armed conflicts in the DRC, North-East Nigeria and beyond. In the Sahel, children have to flee their villages on fire with nothing more than their last piece of cloth on their frail bodies. In Latin America, Venezuelan refugee children continue to struggle in exile, facing dangers in every corner, from trafficking and gangs, to missing out on the opportunity of an education and a future.

These are real examples of some of the 44 countries and contexts in which ECW invests financial resources towards a holistic quality education, safe learning environments and school meals.

The question is: are we all doing enough?

As many will know, Education Cannot Wait is a global platform in the UN system, hosted by UNICEF. It is made up of our High-Level Steering Group, our Executive Committee and our Secretariat, along with strategic public and private donor partners, Ministers of Education and numerous admirable and hard-working UN and civil society partners, as well as communities.

ECW is able to deliver with speed because it is a catalyst that brings together partners who operate with the same level of commitment, energy and determination. We are also able to deliver with depth and quality because we share the same vision of a child-centered approach and learning outcomes.

In the midst of this very dark year, Education Cannot Wat delivered on its mission, making more than US$228 million in investments, including US$44 million in First Emergency Responses, US$176 million in Multi-Year Resilience Programmes and US$8 million in Acceleration Facility grants – the latter for piloting innovative approaches.

Our funding gap was further closed as we reached nearly US$1 billion in financial resources for our 2023-2026 Strategic Plan. But more resources are urgently needed if we are to cater to the actual needs and reach, at minimum, 20 million children (pre-school, primary and secondary) and their teachers by the end of this strategic period.

With an additional US$570 million, we can completely close this gap. It is possible. When annual military expenditures worldwide stand at US$2.4 trillion, there is no justification whatsoever to fail in investing a minimum of US$570 million for Education Cannot Wait to support lifesaving and life-sustaining education for children enduring the brunt of man-made and climate crises; as well as to invest substantive financial resources to our sister-funds, such as the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) and the International Finance Facility for Education (IFFEd).

As our ongoing analysis and research at Education Cannot Wait indicates, the number of children in emergencies and protracted crises – who are denied or deprived an education – is getting closer to a quarter of a billion children and adolescents. We can prevent this.

While we are all trying to do something, we can and must do so much more. It is possible.

This leads me to the founder and outgoing High-Level Steering Group Chair of Education Cannot Wait, The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, the UN Special Envoy for Global Education. He had a vision that led to the creation of Education Cannot Wait. Joined by strategic partners in governments, the UN and civil society, he pulled through its establishment at the World Humanitarian Summit.

In just a few years, this vision has turned into over 11 million children, adolescents and teachers benefitting from a quality education in the harshest circumstances around the globe.

In the immortal words of Viktor Frankl: “The world is in a bad state, but everything will become still worse unless each of us does his [and her] best.”

The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown did his best and has made an incredible difference transforming millions of lives and generations to come.

Let his legacy inspire us all.

With this, on behalf of the whole Education Cannot Wait family, I wish you Happy Holidays. May 2025 be a brighter year.

Yasmine Sherif is Executive Director of Education Cannot Wait

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Camps of Death, Terror: Syrian Survivors Face Long Road To Recovery

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, Middle East & North Africa, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Human Rights

The people walk to Saydnaya prison to search for the detainees. Credit: Abdul Karem al-Mohammad/IPS

The people walk to Saydnaya prison to search for the detainees. Credit: Abdul Karem al-Mohammad/IPS

IDLIB, Syria, Dec 16 2024 (IPS) – Detained without trial for over three years for trial for allegedly treating “terrorists” (as opponents of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were deemed), Alaa al-Khalil, a 33-year-old nurse from the Syrian city of Hama, recounts the agony of her time in a prison cell she shared with at least 35 women.

She was released from Aydnaya prison on December 8 after the fall of the Assad regime.

Following the fall of Assad’s regime and his escape to Moscow on December 8, armed opposition factions managed to open the doors of prisons, freeing hundreds of detainees who had endured the most horrific forms of torture for opposing Assad’s rule and demanding his removal from power. Many lost their lives within the prisons and were buried in mass graves, while the families of the detainees continue to search for their missing loved ones in the prisons of tyranny.

Years of Torture

“I was arrested at a security checkpoint belonging to the former Syrian regime and transferred to the Political Security Branch in Damascus—my hands were cuffed, and my eyes were blindfolded. In prison, we were 35 women in a small, cramped room with the toilet in the same room, without any privacy,” Khalil told IPS. “The marks of severe torture were clearly visible on some of the women. As for sleep, we would lie on the floor and take turns sleeping due to the very small size of the room. The most painful thing was that there were many pregnant women who gave birth to children who grew up inside the prison.”

The search for survivors in Sednaya prison. Credit: Abdul Karem al-Mohammad/IPS

The search for survivors in Sednaya prison. Credit: Abdul Karem al-Mohammad/IPS

During that time, she said the prisoners suffered from “hunger, cold, and all forms of torture, including beatings, burning with cigarettes, and nail pulling.”

Many of the female detainees were raped and exposed to sexual violence as a form of punishment. After midnight, the guards would come to the detainees’ room to select the most beautiful girls to take them to the officers’ rooms.

“We preferred torture and even death to rape. When a girl refused to have sex or confess to the charges against her during interrogation, she would be killed by the guards or interrogators, and her body would be thrown into the salt room, which was prepared in advance to preserve the bodies of the dead for as long as possible,” she said, tearfully remembering the daily trauma.

Khalil confirms that prisoners were not allowed to look at the guards, talk, or make any noise, even during torture. They were punished by being deprived of water or forced to sleep naked without covers in the freezing cold. The meals consisted of a few bites of spoilt food, and many people contracted serious infections, diseases, and mental disorders.

Now released, Khalil hopes to enjoy safety, stability, and peace in this country after years of oppression and injustice.

Adnan al-Ibrahim, 46, from the southern Syrian city of Daraa, was also released a few days ago from Adra prison on the outskirts of Damascus after spending over 10 years there on charges of defecting from Bashar al-Assad’s army and seeking asylum in Lebanon.

“I feel like I’m dreaming after being released from prison. They accused me of terrorism, subjected me to torture, and I was never brought before a court during my imprisonment. I’m still traumatized by what I endured,” Ibrahim says.

“We were subjected to the worst treatment imaginable in prisons. All we want now is the right to live a decent life, far from injustice, arbitrary arrests, and the ongoing killing in Syria.”

He is now emaciated and weak—his weight drastically reduced due to malnutrition and poor diet. Most of his fellow inmates suffered from life-threatening illnesses as a result of the torture they endured. Many inmates lost their memory due to being beaten on the head during interrogations, and the bodies of the dead remained for long periods before being removed. Many of these bodies were disposed of by burning.

Burdened by Psychological Prauma

Samah Barakat, a 33-year-old mental health specialist, says the survivors of Syrian detention centres will need help to overcome their traumas.

‘The experience of imprisonment and torture in prisons is painful and traumatic for survivors. Imprisonment is not limited to physical torture; the mental state is also affected. Prisoners were subjected to various forms of torture and oppression, leading to a significant deterioration in their mental health. These effects include a range of psychological disorders such as psychosis, memory loss, and speech impediments, in addition to the spread of diseases due to their deprivation of basic medical care.”

Barakat confirms that some detainees are likely to suffer from physical, psychological, and behavioural effects, accompanied by constant anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal.

She explains that survivors of detention need psychological support, which varies depending on the impact of the detention experience. Some need psychological counseling or therapy sessions with specialists, while others require medication prescribed by a psychiatrist due to depression or other mental illnesses.

An Unknown Fate

For some, the uncertainty of the fates of their loved ones means the trauma of the Asad regime lives on.

Alaa al-Omar, 52, from the northern Syrian city of Idlib, went to Saydnaya prison and the Palestine Branch in Damascus after the fall of the Assad regime, hoping to find his son, who had disappeared in the prison’s depths.

“I went to the prison with great longing, but I found no trace of my son. I think he died as a result of torture.”

Omar affirms that his son was arrested by the Assad regime forces in 2015 while studying at a university in Aleppo, accused of participating in demonstrations, carrying weapons, and joining the opposition factions.

Omar indicates he heard nothing from his son or about his son since his arrest, and his fate remains unknown even now.

Human Rights Violations

Human rights activist Salim Al-Najjar (41), from Aleppo, speaks about the suffering of survivors of detention and told IPS that the history of building prisons and expanding detention centers in Syria dated back to the rule of Hafez al-Assad, whose regime in the 1980s exercised excessive force against its opponents, turning the country into a “large slaughterhouse.”

“In the regime’s prisons, lives are as equal as stones in the hands of a sculptor, killed and discarded without regard or importance. In them, a person becomes a mere number, with their history, feelings, and even dreams that haunted them until the last moment of their lives ignored,” Najjar says.

Al-Najjar confirms the existence of many prisons in Syria, but the Saydnaya prison, located north of the Syrian capital Damascus, is known as the most prominent political detention center in Syria and was notorious for its horrific reputation as a site of torture and mass executions, especially after the outbreak of the Syrian revolution in 2011. Saydnaya prison was where Assad’s detained opponents or defectors from his army or those who rejected his “killing policy.”

He points out that few detainees were released through family connections or bribes, while the detainees were left to die from their untreated wounds and diseases in “dirty, overcrowded” cells.

He notes that many detainees emerged from behind bars suffering from a loss of their mental faculties, unable to remember their names or identify themselves, and due to the severe changes caused by malnutrition and brutal torture, their features had changed to the point that their families did not recognize them at first.

Najjar hopes to achieve justice for the victims by presenting evidence and documents to international courts and holding Assad and all perpetrators of violations in Syria accountable.

The Syrian Network for Human Rights said in a statement on December 11 that Assad is accused of killing at least 202,000 Syrian civilians, including 15,000 killed under torture, the disappearance of 96,000 others, and the forced displacement of nearly 13 million Syrian citizens, as well as other heinous violations, including the use of chemical weapons.

“Syrian detention centers and torture chambers symbolize the agony, oppression, and suffering that Syrians have endured for decades. Survivors of detention continue to heal their wounds and strive to return to their normal lives and reintegrate into society. Sadly, a significant number of them have perished under torture.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

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

‘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