COP29 Falls Short on Finance

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, COP29, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Inequality, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Murad Sezer/Reuters via Gallo Images

LONDON, Dec 2 2024 (IPS) – COP29, the latest annual climate summit, had one job: to strike a deal to provide the money needed to respond to climate change. It failed.

This was the first climate summit dedicated to finance. Global south countries estimate they need a combined US$1.3 trillion a year to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to the impacts of climate change. But the last-minute offer made by global north states was for only US$300 billion a year.


The agreement leaves vague how much of the promised target, to be met by 2035, will be in the form of direct grants, as opposed to other means such as loans, and how much will come directly from states. As for the US$1 trillion annual funding gap, covering it remains an aspiration, with all potential sources encouraged to step up their efforts. The hope seems to be that the private sector will invest where it hasn’t already, and that innovations such as new levies and taxes will be explored, which many powerful states and industry lobbyists are sure to resist.

Some global north states are talking up the deal, pointing out that it triples the previous target of US$100 billion a year, promised at COP15 in 2009 and officially reached in 2022, although how much was provided in reality remains a matter of debate. Some say this deal is all they can afford, given economic and political constraints.

But global north states hardly engaged constructively. They delayed making an offer for so long that the day before talks were due to end, the draft text of the agreement contained no numbers. Then they made a lowball offer of US$250 billion a year.

Many representatives from global south states took this as an insult. Talks threatened to collapse without an agreement. Amid scenes of chaos and confusion, the summit’s president, Mukhtar Babayev of Azerbaijan, was accused of weakness and lack of leadership. By the time global north states offered US$300 billion, negotiations had gone past the deadline, and many saw this as a take-it-or-leave it offer.

The negotiating style of global north states spoke of a fundamental inequality in climate change. Global north countries have historically contributed the bulk of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions due to their industrialisation. But it’s global south countries that are most affected by climate change impacts such as extreme weather and rising sea levels. What’s more, they’re being asked to take a different development path to fossil fuel-powered industrialisation – but without adequate financial support to do so.

These evident injustices led some states, angered by Babayev bringing talks to an abrupt end, to believe that no deal would have been better than what was agreed. For others, waiting another year for COP30 would have been a luxury they couldn’t afford, given the ever-increasing impacts of climate change.

Financing on the agenda

Far from being settled, the conversation around climate financing should be regarded as only just having begun. The figures involved – whether it’s US$300 billion or US$1.3 trillion a year – seem huge, but in global terms they’re tiny. The US$1.3 trillion needed is less than one per cent of global GDP, which stands at around US$110 trillion. It’s a little more than the amount invested in fossil fuels this year, and far less than annual global military spending, which has risen for nine years running and now stands at around US$2.3 trillion a year.

If the money isn’t forthcoming, the sums needed will be eclipsed by the costs of cleaning up the disasters caused by climate change, and dealing with rising insecurity, conflict and economic disruption. For example, devastating floods in Valencia, Spain, in October caused at least 217 deaths and economic losses of around US$10.6 billion. Research suggests that each degree of warming would slash the world’s GDP by 12 per cent. Investing in a transition that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and enables communities to adapt isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s also the economically prudent option.

The same problems arose at another recent summit on a related issue – COP16 of the Biodiversity Convention, hosted by Colombia in October. This broke up with no agreement on how to meet the funding commitments agreed at its previous meeting. The international community, having forged agreements to address climate change and protect the environment, is stuck when it comes to finding the funding to realise them.

What’s largely missing is discussion of how wealth might be better shared for the benefit of humanity. Over the past decade, as the world has grown hotter, inequality has soared, with the world’s richest one per cent adding a further US$42 trillion to their fortunes – less than needed to adequately respond to climate change. The G20’s recent meeting said little on climate change, but leaders at least agreed that ultra-wealthy people should be properly taxed. The battle should now be on to ensure this happens – and that revenues are used to tackle climate change.

When it comes to corporations, few are richer than the fossil fuel industry. But the ‘polluter pays’ principle – that those who cause environmental damage pay to clean it up – seems missing from climate negotiations. The fossil fuel industry is the single biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for over 75 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s grown incredibly rich thanks to its destructive trade.

Over the past five decades, the oil and gas sector has made profits averaging US$2.8 billion a day. Only a small fraction of those revenues have been invested in alternatives, and oil and gas companies plan to extract more: since COP28, around US$250 billion has been committed to developing new oil and gas fields. The industry’s wealth should make it a natural target for paying to fix the mess it’s made. A proposed levy on extractions could raise US$900 billion by 2030.

Progress is needed, and fast. COP30 now has the huge task of compensating for the failings of COP29. Pressure must be kept up for adequate financing combined with concerted action to cut emissions. Next year, states are due to present their updated plans to cut emissions and adapt to climate change. Civil society will push for these to show the ambition needed – and for money to be mobilised at the scale required.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

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

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

When the Truth Becomes a Lie: What Trump’s Election Means for the World as we Know it

Civil Society, Democracy, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the General Debate of the General Assembly’s 75th session September 2020. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

NEW YORK, Nov 8 2024 (IPS) – On the day following the US election, UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres issued a brief statement commending the people of the United States for their active participation in the democratic process. He wisely omitted to mention that the election of Donald J. Trump – who attempted to overturn the people’s mandate by inciting an insurrection in 2020 – is a major setback for the UN’s worldwide quest to advance human rights and the rule of law.


Trump is a self-avowed admirer of authoritarian strongmen like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban who disdain international norms that the UN seeks to uphold. Unsurprisingly, questions posed to the UN Secretary General’s spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, in a press conference on November 6, ranged from what will be Trump’s response to the war in Ukraine to potential funding cuts that might come with the new US administration to whether the UN has contingency plans ready for when Trump takes office.

The US plays an outsized role in global affairs. Therefore, any changes in policy in Washington impact the whole world. As someone who bears responsibility for stewarding a global civil society alliance, it worries me what a second Trump presidency will unleash.

Even without Trump in power we are living in a world where wars are being conducted with complete disregard for the rules; corrupt billionaires are dictating public policy for their benefit; and greed induced environmental degradation is putting us on a path to climate catastrophe. Hard fought gains on gender justice are in danger of being rolled back.

The first Trump administration showed disdain for the UN Human Rights Council and pulled the US out of vital global commitments such as the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. It restricted support for civil society groups around the world and targeted those that sought to promote sexual and reproductive rights of women. Promotion of democracy and human rights are key pillars of US foreign policy.

It’s deeply concerning that when disinformation and misinformation have assumed pandemic level proportions, the majority of the US electorate have cast their vote in favour of a candidate who ran his campaign on divisive dog whistles, half-truths and outright lies. These tactics have deepened fissures in an already polarized United States.

Families countrywide were left devastated by Trump’s negligence and COVID denialism as president which resulted in tens of thousands of Americans dying of avoidable infections. His administration’s immigration detention and deportation policies instilled fear in minority communities. This time Trump has vowed to deport millions of people.

Trump’s stances on abortion rights have caused women immeasurable suffering in several US states that have introduced laws to ban the procedure. He has promised to accelerate harmful fossil fuel extraction and undoubtedly views gender justice advocates, environmental defenders and migrant rights activists as a threat his power.

Given the stated predilections of Trump and his advisors, opposition politicians, activists and journalists exposing corruption and rights violations are likely to be at risk of enhanced surveillance, intimidation and persecution by the new administration.

At the international level, Trump’s election casts a pall over efforts to ensure accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sudan and Ukraine due to his tacit support for authoritarian leaders in Israel, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom are fueling conflicts and causing havoc abroad. A future Trump administration could try to starve the UN of funding to erode the rules based international order, emboldening autocrats.

Even if things appear bleak today, it’s important to remember that there are hundreds and thousands of civil society activists and organisations around the world who remain steadfast in their resolve to celebrate diversity and promote justice and equality. To imagine the future we sometimes have to take heart from the past.

India’s freedom struggle, South Africa’s struggle against apartheid and the civil rights movement in the United States wasn’t won by authoritarian leaders but by brave and determined individuals united in solidarity and determined to resist oppression for as long as it takes.

There is a lesson here for civil society in the US that higher American ideals are worth standing up for and will outlive any sitting president.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. He also serves as CIVICUS representative to the United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

‘We Continue Working to Make Sure Afghan Girls and Women Are Heard and Not Forgotten’

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Featured, Gender, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Labour, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 15 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses Afghanistan’s system of gender apartheid with Shaharzad Akbar, Executive Director of Rawadari, a human rights organisation founded by Afghans in exile.


Since regaining power in August 2021, the Taliban have banned women from all education beyond primary school and most jobs. They don’t allow women to travel without a male guardian or be seen in public, with severe penalties for violations. A new law introduced in August 2024 further silenced women by literally banning them from being heard in public. This received widespread international condemnation. Afghan civil society, mostly in exile, continues to document human rights abuses, advocate with international allies and campaign for change.

Shaharzad Akbar

How much space is there for civil society to operate in Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Not much. Although there’s still some civic resistance, mainly led by women, the Taliban have dismantled almost all civic structures. They have disbanded student associations and teachers’ unions and severely restricted the space for civil society to operate.

Long before they took power, the Taliban targeted civil society activists, journalists and religious and tribal leaders who challenged their rules. But when they regained power in August 2021, they used state institutions to further restrict civic space. It was women who resisted: just one day after the Taliban seized Kabul, they took to the streets to demand their rights. Independent media cautiously tried to cover these protests, but journalists were beaten and tortured. By January 2022, the Taliban were arresting women protesters. Cases of arbitrary detention, torture and intimidation and enforced disappearances have only increased since then.

The Taliban repealed laws protecting journalists and civil society, increased censorship and used intimidation to silence independent media. Anyone who criticises their government, even if it’s a social media post questioning electricity cuts, is likely to receive a phone call from the Taliban’s intelligence agency ordering them to delete it and not to raise the issue again.

It’s now impossible to work openly on human rights or freedom of expression in Afghanistan. The Taliban shut down the organisation I headed, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). Other organisations working on cultural rights, peacebuilding and social issues have either changed their mandates or left.

How have the Taliban responded to women’s resistance?

When they returned to power, the Taliban were surprised to see women take to the streets against them. Given the Taliban’s violent past, many men didn’t dare protest. But women, who the Taliban underestimated because they saw them as weak, stood together and challenged them publicly.

At first they thought the protests would die down, but when this didn’t happen, they responded with increased violence, imprisoning and torturing women activists and targeting their families. They also launched a smear campaign accusing them of not being ‘authentic’ Afghan women. Since then, they’ve tried to impose the idea that Afghan women belong at home, fully covered and without any public aspirations.

Many repressive decrees followed. First, women were segregated from men in universities, then required to cover up even more and finally banned altogether from universities in December 2022. Restrictions on women’s work also increased over time: women were first restricted to the government health and education sectors and they were later banned from working for civil society organisations and the United Nations (UN). The result was a full-blown system of gender apartheid.

But women refused to be erased and found new ways to resist. Some have continued to protest publicly, even at great risk to their lives and those of their families. A notable example is a protester who was detained with her four-year-old son. Others have opted for more subtle forms of resistance, setting up clandestine schools and seeking education delivered via WhatsApp by Afghan diaspora and international educators. Women’s rights activists, both inside and outside Afghanistan, have formed advocacy networks that are very active in international and regional forums.

When was Rawadari founded and what does it do?

Rawadari was publicly launched in December 2022 by a group of exiled former AIHRC staff. We had been documenting human rights abuses for over a decade and were forced into exile when the Taliban came to power. We set up Rawadari because we felt it was important to continue monitoring and documenting the situation, and to counter the disinformation being spread by the Taliban.

Rawadari’s work focuses on three areas. The first is human rights monitoring. To date, we have published nine reports, available in English and Afghanistan’s two main languages, Dari and Pashto. We want to ensure they are accessible to both local and international audiences.

Our second area is advocacy, particularly on accountability and victim-centred justice. We regularly submit reports to the UN and push for the Taliban to be brought before the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. We also advocate for additional resources for the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan and are exploring other mechanisms, such as the establishment of a people’s tribunal for Afghanistan.

The third focus of our work is to promote a culture of human rights. This is difficult because, being outside Afghanistan, we have to do it through social media campaigns and online discussions and events. But we try to keep the conversation going and build alliances within the human rights community and beyond.

How are you campaigning for women’s rights?

In June this year, it was 1,000 days since the Taliban banned girls from going to school. To raise awareness and keep the issue alive in people’s minds, we launched the Iqra campaign (‘read’ in Arabic). We worked with Musawer, an organisation led by the renowned Afghan poet Shafiqa Khpalwak.

As we couldn’t use video footage for security reasons, we asked girls to record a short audio clip about how the ban on education affected them. This wasn’t easy, because many girls don’t have their own phones and identifying them could put them at risk. But we managed to gather voices from across Afghanistan.

The campaign was a success because it centred the voices of Afghan girls from every corner of the country and brought them to the fore, and because it gained support from men and women. Girls spoke about the dreams they’ve lost, the friendships they miss and the depression and negative thoughts they battle every day. Some said they’d witnessed early marriages among their friends. They all appealed to the international community to support their right to education. Some clips reached thousands of people, and prominent Afghan singers, TV personalities and other celebrities amplified the message and called for the reopening of girls’ schools.

We’ve also recently worked with Femena, a regional organisation, to launch a campaign in response to the recent ban on women’s voices in public spaces. Afghan women, at great risk, began singing as a form of protest. To show solidarity, we asked people around the world to share a song, poem or message of support each week. So we continue working to make sure Afghan girls and women are heard and not forgotten.

What challenges do you face in your work?

One of the main obstacles we face is the complete closure of the physical spaces in which we used to work. We can’t hold programmes in schools, universities or mosques in Afghanistan, nor can we speak openly about human rights issues without putting people at serious risk. This severely limits our ability to have face-to-face conversations, which are crucial for mobilising support and building relationships.

Another major challenge is gathering and verifying information. In the past, when there was a violent attack, we would go to hospitals and other local facilities to get details. Now the Taliban have ordered these facilities not to share sensitive information. Families of victims and survivors are also often afraid to speak out, making it difficult for us to document serious violations such as disappearances. Even when we promise them full and strict confidentiality, families are too afraid to come forward.

It is also a challenge to protect our network in Afghanistan. Something as simple as compensating people for their communication or transportation costs could put them in danger. We can’t organise collective online training sessions because participants could reveal their identities to each other, increasing the risks.

On the advocacy front, our biggest challenge is the lack of political will. Afghanistan has largely fallen off the international agenda and many western countries, particularly the USA, are reluctant to get involved. There’s a general perception that Afghanistan is a failed intervention they want to move on from, which leads to a lack of investment in improving the situation, particularly in this election year. Global attention and resources have also shifted to other crises such as the war in Gaza.

This risks normalising the Taliban regime. Neighbouring countries, including China, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, are gradually developing relations with it. We fear that the Taliban regime, which is not yet officially recognised by any country, may eventually gain the international recognition it seeks despite its policy of gender apartheid.

What international support does Afghan civil society need?

Humanitarian aid is key to meeting immediate needs, but it doesn’t address the underlying problems. There is an urgent need to improve the economy, but the international community must find ways to do this without empowering the Taliban, who don’t really care about the wellbeing of Afghan people.

States must be careful to avoid actions that could be seen as accepting the Taliban’s repressive policies and lead to their normalisation. For example, when they engage diplomatically with the Taliban, they must include women and civil society representatives in their delegations. It’s not about stopping engagement with the Taliban; it’s about ensuring every interaction sends a strong message about the importance of human rights, and specifically women’s rights.

People around the world can also help by urging their governments to take a principled approach in their engagement with the Taliban, prioritise women’s rights, hold the Taliban accountable and support education programmes, scholarships and initiatives for Afghan women and girls. They can also support organisations that campaign for their rights.

Even simple acts of solidarity like singing a song and reading a poem in support of Afghan women, if done collectively, can keep the international spotlight on Afghanistan, give hope to women and girls in Afghanistan and therefore make a difference.

Get in touch with Rawadari through its website or Facebook and Instagram pages, follow @rawadari_org and @ShaharzadAkbar on Twitter, and contact Shaharzad on LinkedIn.

  Source

‘The Focus Should Be on Holding Social Media Companies Accountable, Not Punishing Individual Users’

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 7 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.


Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

Iná Jost

Why did the Brazilian Supreme Court ban X?

The case began on 7 August when a Supreme Court justice, investigating ‘digital malicious activities’, ordered the blocking of seven X profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.

X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of expression. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently raised and ended up amounting to over US$3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but they weren’t enough to cover the fines.

After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different sphere and its operations aren’t entirely linked to X.

The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. It then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which it failed to do. As a result, on 30 August, the court ordered the closure of X.

It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and the whole procedure was carried out under seal. We are unable to grasp the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.

What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?

The Court based its decision on Brazil’s 2014 Civil Framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for failing to comply with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the notion that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; however, the shutdown resulted from the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Civil society raised concerns about some aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a US$9,000 fine for users trying to circumvent the ban, which many felt was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.

Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?

It is. Regulating platforms isn’t necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about ensuring a powerful company operates transparently and protects users. Platforms acting solely in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulation can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and respect due process for content removal.

The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misguided. Thoughtful regulation that allows users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.

Musk’s stance in this case is deeply problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. While platforms like X are crucial to public communication, that doesn’t give them the right to defy the legal system they operate in. Freedom of expression does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, particularly when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.

Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression fails to consider the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become havens for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They should be regulated to ensure they remain a space for lawful discourse.

Do you think this case will set a precedent?

I don’t think so. Some people are worried other platforms could be blocked as well, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario, and Brazil is a strong democracy. This wasn’t an act of censorship by the judiciary but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.

States should develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately harms the users the most. While the company might incur some financial losses, journalists and citizens are losing access to a vital information and communication tool.

I hope states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading case for blocking platforms.

Get in touch with InternetLab through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @internetlabbr on Twitte.

  Source

The UN Cybercrime Convention: A New Repressive Tool in Disguise?

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: CIVICUS

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Oct 4 2024 (IPS) – The UN Office on Drugs and Crime hailed the recently agreed Cybercrime Convention as a ‘landmark step’ in cooperating to tackle online dangers. But human rights organisations aren’t so sure.


Ominously, the resolution that started the process, passed by the UN General Assembly in December 2019, was sponsored by authoritarian Russia and backed by some of the world’s most repressive states. Some of them already had cybercrime laws they use to stifle legitimate dissent. Many more have passed similar laws since.

When Russia’s resolution was put to a vote, the EU, USA and many other states, alongside human rights and digital rights organisations, urged states to reject it. But once the resolution passed, they had to engage with the process to try to prevent the worst possible outcome: a treaty lacking human rights safeguards that could be used as a repressive tool.

They succeeded in tempering some of the worst aspects of early drafts, but the results still leave much to be desired.

The treaty process

The December 2019 resolution established an ad hoc committee (AHC) to lead negotiations, open to the participation of all UN member states plus others as observers, including civil society.

The pandemic delayed the process, and the AHC’s first meeting, focused on procedural rules, was held in mid-2021. Brazil’s proposal to require a two-thirds majority for decisions when states couldn’t reach consensus prevailed over the simple majority rule favoured by Russia. The AHC approved a list of eligible stakeholders, including civil society organisations (CSOs), academic institutions and private sector representatives.

The first negotiating session in February 2022 took another important decision: consultations would be held between negotiations, including for CSOs, to provide input and feedback. Numerous human rights and digital rights CSOs took part, often working in coalitions. They made written submissions, attended face-to-face and online meetings and made oral interventions.

Damage control

Ahead of the first negotiating session, some 130 organisations and experts signed a letter urging the AHC to ensure the treaty included human rights protections, warning that otherwise it could become ‘a powerful weapon for oppression’. They were up against numerous states that didn’t agree human rights safeguards were needed.

By April 2022, many states initially opposed to the treaty had begun to participate actively, so civil society focused on damage control. By then it was apparent there wasn’t a clear definition of what constitutes a cybercrime and which crimes the treaty should regulate. Several states aggressively pushed for broad and ambiguous provisions they claimed were needed to combat extremism, hate speech and terrorism.

Civil society insisted the treaty shouldn’t be overly broad and should only cover core cybercrimes or cyber-dependent crimes: crimes committed against computer systems, networks and data, including hacking, computing system interference, ransomware and the spreading of malware. And even when dealing with these crimes, civil society warned, treaty provisions shouldn’t apply to security research, the work of whistleblowers and other actions that benefit the public.

Civil society insisted on the exclusion of cyber-enabled crimes: those that can be facilitated by ICTs but can also committed without them, such as arms and drug trafficking, money laundering and the distribution of counterfeit goods. This category could potentially include numerous offences that would repress the online exercise of civic freedoms.

A second major concern was the scope and conditions for international cooperation. Here too civil society urged clear definitions and a narrow scope. It argued that if not clearly defined, cooperation arrangements could mean enhanced surveillance and bulk data sharing, violating privacy and data protection provisions. It warned that in the absence of the principle of dual criminality – which means extradition can only apply to an action that constitutes a crime in both the country making the request and the one receiving it – state authorities could be made to investigate activities that aren’t crimes in their countries on other states’ behalf. They could effectively become enforcers of the repression of others.

Tech companies also shared civil society’s concerns about the potential for expansive electronic surveillance in the name of fighting crime.

Human rights sidelined

Civil society representatives see the final draft as not as bad as it could have been, but it still lacks clear, specific and enforceable human rights protections. Rather than applying them as international standards, the treaty leaves human rights safeguards up to each state’s domestic law.

Civil society advocacy led to improvements on the first drafts, including an expanded article on human rights that references civic freedoms, and the inclusion of the right to an effective remedy in the article on conditions and safeguards. The most blatant attempts to weaponise the treaty to criminalise expression failed, although some cyber-enabled crimes still made it into the text. The activities of journalists, security researchers and whistleblowers aren’t adequately protected.

The convention includes a chapter on crimes against computer systems, networks and data, plus a limited number of cyber-enabled crimes, such as child sexual abuse. But while the list of crimes is narrower than initially proposed, the scope of cooperation in collecting and sharing data became wider, raising real dangers of state overreach in the form of surveillance and invasion of privacy.

Still time

It isn’t game over. The final text will soon be put to a vote by member states at the UN General Assembly and, assuming a majority approves it, states will then need to ratify the convention. At least 40 ratifications will be needed before it enters into force, a process likely to take several years. Two years after the General Assembly vote, negotiations are expected to begin on an additional protocol covering further crimes, which won’t be concluded until 60 states have ratified the convention. Civil society fears this is when the worst proposals to criminalise speech will resurface.

Civil society will encourage governments to reject the convention and instead take a human rights-based approach. Once the UN General Assembly approves the convention, civil society will warn of the dangers it poses to human rights and civil liberties and oppose ratification.

With or without an international convention, civil society will continue to work to ensure cybercrime legislation at all levels meets the highest human rights standards, including respect for civic freedoms, and isn’t used as a means of repression.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

A longer version of this article is available here.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source