TOGO: ‘The International Community Must Send a Clear Message That Power Grabs Won’t Be Tolerated’

Posted on by admin

Africa, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Headlines, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Sep 11 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the crackdown on civil society in Togo with a human rights defender who asked to stay anonymous for security reasons.

Political tensions in Togo have increased following the recent adoption of constitutional changes. Under the new parliamentary system, the president will be elected by parliament rather than popular vote, and a powerful new post of President of the Council of Ministers will be created. Suspicions are that the changes will enable President Faure Gnassingbé to stay in power. Gnassingbé has ruled Togo since 2005, when he took over from his father, who’d seized power in a 1967 coup. The government has banned protests against the changes, disrupted civil society meetings, arbitrarily arrested and detained protesters and suspended and deported journalists for covering the unrest.

What are the main constitutional changes and why have the political opposition and civil society objected to them?

On 25 March, Togo’s National Assembly adopted a new constitution that dramatically changes the country’s governance from a presidential to a parliamentary system. The changes were not put to a referendum, but were decided through opaque legislative procedures. The main changes are the abolition of direct presidential elections and the creation of the powerful role of President of the Council of Ministers. Similar to a prime minister, this president is elected by parliament for a six-year term that can be extended indefinitely if he retains majority support. This removes the two-term limit imposed by the 2019 constitution, which was introduced after massive public protests.

The new constitution sparked widespread controversy and came amid an already tense political climate, with parliamentary and regional elections originally scheduled for 13 April repeatedly postponed while lawmakers debated the constitutional changes. Political parties, civil society organisations (CSOs), the Catholic Church and part of the population see it as an attempt by the ruling family to cling to power, as the amendments would extend the 19-year presidency of Faure Gnassingbé and the 57-year dynastic rule of the Gnassingbé family.

We strongly condemn the adoption of the new constitution and the lack of transparency in the process. This is a constitutional coup that restricts citizens’ political rights, exacerbates political instability and undermines democratic governance.

What reforms are needed to ensure genuine multi-party democracy in Togo?

First, it’s crucial to restore direct presidential elections based on universal suffrage, because the electoral system should truly reflect the will of the people. But a president shouldn’t be allowed to rule indefinitely, so it’s also crucial to reintroduce term limits for the president and other key officials to prevent the concentration of power and promote accountability.

In addition, an independent electoral commission should be established to restore public confidence in a system that’s now perceived to be biased in favour of the ruling party. This commission should oversee all electoral processes and ensure they are free, fair and transparent.

It is also key to ensure equal access to campaign resources for all political parties. Fair media coverage and campaign financing would contribute to a more competitive and representative electoral process. It is equally important to strengthen legal safeguards. All parties should be allowed to operate freely without interference or fear of persecution and violence from state authorities.

We need to increase civic participation. Reforms should facilitate platforms for CSOs to engage in political debate. We must support grassroots movements with resources and training to help them mobilise people and educate them about democratic principles and their rights.

Togolese civil society is already pushing for these changes. Groups such as ‘Touche pas à ma constitution’ (‘Don’t touch my constitution’) are organising protests, raising awareness and holding community meetings to educate people and challenge the new constitution. They have also filed complaints with regional bodies such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), calling for the annulment of the new constitution and the restoration of democratic norms. CSOs and democratic political parties are presenting a united front to demand democratic reforms.

How has the government responded to the protests?

The government has responded to the protests with a heavy-handed approach aimed at silencing dissent. Many opposition leaders and activists have been arrested. On 26 March, law enforcement and security forces banned two press conferences organised by political parties and CSOs on the grounds that the organisers didn’t have proper permits. This was a clear attempt by the government to stifle opposition voices. On 3 April, nine leaders of the political opposition party Dynamique Mgr Kpodzro were also arrested for ‘disturbing public order’. They were released six days later.

The use of violence, a hallmark of the Gnassingbé regime, has created a climate of fear. Anyone who takes part in opposition activities is framed as a criminal who threatens public order and is prosecuted. This has a chilling effect on civil society activism. Many people are afraid of being arrested or violently attacked if they engage in political discourse or take part in protests. This criminalisation undermines our ability to mobilise effectively and advocate for democratic reform.

With our freedoms of expression and assembly severely curtailed, we’ve found it increasingly difficult to organise events, hold press conferences or communicate our messages without interference from security forces. This has increasingly isolated us from the wider public. The crackdown on dissent has undermined public trust in both the government and CSOs, as people become disillusioned with the political process and the weak foundations of democracy.

How can the international community help address the suppression of civic freedoms in Togo?

The international community can play a key role by applying diplomatic pressure and supporting democratic reforms. Public condemnations and resolutions by international bodies such as the United Nations and the African Union can help highlight these issues and push for necessary changes. International bodies and representatives should engage directly with Togolese officials to address concerns.

They should also support local civil society by providing funding, resources and training. This support is essential to strengthen CSOs’ capacity to advocate for democracy and human rights, and to mobilise and empower people.

Independent monitoring and reporting mechanisms are essential to assess the political situation, ensure transparency in the upcoming elections and document human rights violations. If violations continue, the international community should consider sanctioning key officials and making development aid and assistance conditional on respect for democratic principles and human rights. This can serve as an incentive for the government to undertake meaningful reforms.

ECOWAS is also in a position to mediate between the government, the opposition and local civil society to promote a more inclusive and democratic environment. At a time when democracy is in retreat in West Africa, with four countries having suffered military coups since 2020 and 15 leaders having circumvented term limits, ECOWAS must take a firm stand against unconstitutional changes such as those recently seen in Togo and send a clear message that power grabs won’t be tolerated.

Civic space in Togo is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Source

INDIA: ‘Civil Society Organisations Are at the Forefront of the Fight Against Gender-based Violence’

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender Violence, Headlines, Health, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Sep 5 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent wave of protests against gender-based violence (GBV) in India with Dr Kavitha Ravi, a member of the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

Protests erupted across India after a 31-year-old female medical trainee was raped and murdered in a Kolkata hospital on 9 August. The IMA called a strike, with protests held in major cities including Kolkata and Mumbai. While the official strike has ended, many doctors, particularly junior doctors, remain on strike and protests continue to demand justice, accountability and safer working conditions for women.

Kavitha Ravi

What triggered the recent protests against GBV in India?

Protests erupted after the tragic rape and murder of a young female doctor at the R G Kar Medical College in Kolkata on 9 August. This horrific incident shocked the nation and sparked widespread outrage. In response, a coalition of doctors, medical associations such as the IMA and various resident and faculty associations joined together in a nationwide strike to demand justice for the victim and better safety measures for health workers, particularly women who face significant risks in the workplace.

Protesters are calling for major reforms, including the adoption of a Hospital Protection Act, which would designate hospitals as safe zones and introduce measures to create a safer environment for health workers. Their demands are part of a larger movement to comprehensively address GBV, prevent similar tragedies in the future and create a safer and more supportive working environment for everyone in the health sector.

What steps have been taken so far to ensure justice and the safety of female health workers?

The judicial system has acted swiftly by transferring the case to a higher authority to ensure a thorough investigation after concerns were raised about the police’s initial inquiry, which was not accepted by the students or the victim’s family. They were sceptical, believing the police might be favouring the college authorities and supporting the accused.

This decision aims to ensure a detailed investigation so justice can be done. The Supreme Court of India is also overseeing the case to monitor its progress, address any issues that may arise and ensure all necessary steps are taken to uphold justice.

In parallel, several initiatives are underway to improve the safety of female health workers. The Ministry of Health has proposed establishing a committee to review and improve safety protocols in health facilities. There are also plans to increase security in hospitals and establish a new national taskforce dedicated to improving safety through better infrastructure, advanced technology and additional security measures. However, despite these efforts, more needs to be done to combat GBV and ensure that these measures effectively protect female health workers.

How have the authorities responded to the protests?

The authorities have taken a mixed approach to the nationwide strike, combining concessions with new measures to address immediate concerns. The Health Ministry has drawn up a detailed plan to increase security in central government hospitals. This includes installing high-resolution CCTV cameras, monitoring access points with identification badges, deploying trained security personnel for constant patrolling and securing duty rooms for female staff. Hospitals are also encouraged to develop and regularly update emergency response plans and conduct mock drills.

In response to these measures, the IMA suspended its strike. However, other doctors’ associations have continued to protest for more substantial reforms. Many people remain dissatisfied, particularly after recent incidents of police violence. While the Supreme Court’s intervention may have temporarily eased the tensions, protesters remain concerned about the new measures’ effectiveness and full implementation.

Why is GBV so prevalent in India, and what’s being done about it?

Deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and legal factors account for the high prevalence of GBV in India. This is a patriarchal country where traditional gender roles and the subjugation of women are deeply entrenched. Women tend to be economically dependent on men, which traps them in abusive relationships that make it difficult for them to seek help or escape. Intergenerational cycles of violence perpetuate the problem, as children who witness or experience abuse may come to see such behaviour as normal.

Low literacy rates, particularly in rural areas, further limit women’s understanding of their rights and the available support. When they do seek justice, the system often fails to protect the victims or hold perpetrators accountable. Systemic failures in law enforcement and justice help perpetuate GBV.

Many initiatives and campaigns have helped highlight and address this issue. But it has not been easy. A lack of consistent political will and weak implementation of policies have hindered substantial change. Feminist and social justice movements often face resistance from conservative parts of society, making it difficult to change these deeply entrenched cultural norms.

To combat GBV effectively, we need a comprehensive approach that includes better education, legal reform, economic empowerment and cultural change. Civil society organisations are at the forefront of this fight, actively advocating for stronger laws, better enforcement and increased public awareness. Continued and robust efforts are essential to address this widespread problem and ensure meaningful change.

Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Indian Medical Association through its website or Facebook page, and follow @IMAIndiaOrg on Twitter.

  Source

New Zealand: Māori Rights in the Firing Line

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Education, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Dave Lintott / AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Sep 2 2024 (IPS) – A New Zealand bill that would roll back Indigenous rights is unlikely to pass – but it’s emblematic of a growing climate of hostility from governing politicians. A recent survey shows that almost half of New Zealanders believe racial tensions have worsened under the right-wing government in power since December 2023.

The Treaty Principles Bill reinterprets the principles of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. New Zealand’s founding text, this agreement between the British government and Indigenous Māori chiefs established British governorship over the islands in return for recognition of Māori ownership of land and other property.

The treaty was controversial from the start: its English and Māori versions differ in crucial clauses on sovereignty. Māori people lost much of their land, suffering the same marginalisation as Indigenous people in other places settled by Europeans. As a result, Māori people live with higher levels of poverty, unemployment and crime, and lower education and health standards, than the rest of the population.

From the 1950s, Māori people began to organise and demand their treaty rights. This led to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which defined a set of principles derived from the treaty and established the Waitangi Tribunal to determine breaches of the principles and recommend remedies.

In recent years, right-wing politicians have criticised the tribunal, claiming it’s overstepping its mandate – most recently because it held a hearing that concluded the bill breaches treaty principles.

Change in direction

The bill resulted from a coalition agreement forged after the 2023 election. The centre-right National party came first and went into government with two parties to its right: the free-market and libertarian Act party and the nationalist and populist NZ First party. Act demanded the bill as a condition of joining the coalition.

The election was unusually toxic by New Zealand standards. Candidates were subjected to racial abuse and physical violence. A group of Māori leaders complained about unusually high levels of racism. Both Act and NZ First targeted Māori rights, promising to reverse Labour’s progressive policies, including experiments in ‘co-governance’: collaborative decision-making between government and Māori representatives. Act and NZ First characterised such arrangements as conferring racial privilege on Māori people, at odds with universal human rights.

NZ First leader Winston Peters – who’s long opposed what he characterises as special treatment for Māori people despite being Māori himself – pledged to remove Māori-language names from government buildings and withdraw New Zealand’s support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He’s compared co-governance to apartheid and Nazi racial theory. He’s now New Zealand’s deputy prime minister.

New Zealand, though far from Europe and North America, has shown it isn’t immune from the same right-wing populist politics that seek to blame a visible minority for all a country’s problems. In the northern hemisphere the main targets are migrants and religious minorities; in New Zealand, it’s Indigenous people.

Bonfire of policies

If the bill did succeed, it would preclude any interpretation of the treaty as a partnership between the state and Māori people. It would impose a rigid understanding that all New Zealanders have the same rights and responsibilities, inhibiting measures to expand Māori rights. And without special attention, the economic, social and political exclusion of Māori people will only worsen.

The problems go beyond the bill. In February, the government abolished the Māori Health Authority, established in 2022 to tackle health inequalities. In July, a government directive ordered Pharmac, the agency that funds medicines, to stop taking treaty principles into account when making funding decisions. This is part of a broader attack on treaty principles, which the government has pledged to remove from most legislation.

Government departments have been ordered to prioritise their English-language names and communicate primarily in English, unless they’re specifically focused on Māori people. The government has pledged to review the school curriculum – revised last year to place more emphasis on Māori people – and university affirmative action programmes. It’s ceased work on He Puapua, its strategy to implement the UN Declaration.

The government has cut funding for most of its initiatives for Māori people. In all, over a dozen changes are planned, including in environmental management, health and housing.

What’s bad for Māori people is also bad for the climate. The intimate role the environment plays in Māori culture often puts them on the frontline of combating climate change. This year a Māori activist won a ruling allowing him to take seven companies to court over their greenhouse gas emissions, based in part on their impact on places of customary, cultural and spiritual significance to Māori people..

But the new government has cut funding for many projects aimed at meeting New Zealand’s Paris Agreement commitments. It plans to double mineral exports and introduce a law to fast-track large development projects, without having to navigate environmental safeguards. The draft law contains no provisions about treaty principles. Māori people will be disproportionately affected by any weakening of environmental standards.

Out in numbers

This is all shaping up to be a huge setback for Māori rights that can only fuel and normalise racism – but campaigners aren’t taking it quietly. The threat to rights has galvanised and united Māori campaigners.

Civil society groups are taking to the courts to try to halt the changes. And people are protesting in numbers. In December, when parliament met for the first time since the election, thousands gathered outside to condemn anti-Māori policies. At the swearing-in ceremony, Te Pāti Māori politicians broke with convention by dedicating their oaths to the Treaty of Waitangi and future generations.

That same month, 12 people were arrested following a protest in which they defaced an exhibition on the treaty at the national museum. Protesters accused the exhibition of lying about the treaty’s English version.

On 6 February, Waitangi Day, over a thousand people marched to the site where the treaty was agreed, calling for the bill to be rejected. At the official ceremony, people heckled Peters and Act leader Peter Seymour when they spoke.

Most recently, Māori people had a chance to show their discontent at a ceremony held in August to commemorate the coronation of the Māori King. Although normally all major party leaders attend, Seymour wasn’t invited, and a Māori leader told Prime Minister Christopher Luxon that the government had ‘turned its back on Māori’. The Māori King also called a rare national meeting in January, and the turnout – 10,000 people – further showed the extent of concern.

Wasted potential

At the same time, the Māori population is growing quickly – it recently passed the million mark – and is youthful. Compared to previous generations, people are more likely to embrace their Māori identity, culture and language. Māori people are showing their resilience, and activism has never been stronger. But this growing momentum has hit a political roadblock that threatens to throttle its potential – all for the sake of short-term political gain.

New Zealand’s positive international reputation is on the line – but it doesn’t have to be this way. The government should start acting like a responsible partner under the Treaty of Waitangi. It must abide by the treaty principles, as developed and elaborated over time, and stop scapegoating Māori people.

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

VIETNAM: ‘Human Rights Conditions Will Likely Worsen as the Country Descends into a Police State’

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Environment, Featured, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, Labour, TerraViva United Nations

Aug 29 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses recent leadership changes in Vietnam with David Tran, coordinator of the Alliance for Vietnam’s Democracy, a civil society platform that promotes democracy in Vietnam and the region through international cooperation and the strengthening of local civil society.

On 3 August, President Tô Lâm was confirmed as General Secretary of the Communist Party, Vietnam’s top position, following the death of long-serving General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng. Lâm, who has been president since May, is known for leading an aggressive anti-corruption campaign that has seen many officials jailed and others forced to resign. He will continue as president while assuming the duties of general secretary, potentially enabling him to consolidate power ahead of the 2026 party congress, which will choose Vietnam’s top leaders for the next five years. Civil society fears the regime could become even more autocratic and repressive if Lâm retains both positions.

David Tran

What’s Vietnam’s political system like, and what’s the likely impact of the recent leadership change?

Vietnam is an authoritarian one-party state led by the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP). There are four key positions of authority: the president, who is the ceremonial head of state, the prime minister, who heads the government, the chair of the National Assembly, the unicameral legislature, and the most powerful, the general secretary of the VCP.

Although the president is elected by the National Assembly, this body is overwhelmingly made up of VCP members, who usually approve all incumbents unopposed. On 3 August, following the death of the last VCP general secretary, Nguyễn Phú Trọng, Tô Lâm was confirmed as the new VCP leader.

This appointment is particularly significant because it puts a lot of power in the hands of one person. His dual role gives Tô Lâm considerable influence over the state and party, as well as greater control over the public security apparatus. While he appears set to continue the policies of his predecessor, there are several cracks beneath the surface. His power is likely to be challenged by several VCP members who’ve been forced into retirement by his ‘anticorruption’ campaign, effectively an initiative to eliminate competing factions. We can expect this infighting to continue and intensify.

What does Tô Lâm’s rise mean from a human rights perspective?

Tô Lâm has had a long career, including stints as minister of public security and a member of the politburo. The key role he played in the previous general secretary’s ‘anticorruption’ campaign saw him elected president in May, after his investigations into several high-profile politicians and businesspeople led to the resignation of his predecessor and other top officials.

The accumulation of power in the hands of the architect of a purge is unlikely to lead to improvements in civic space or human rights. Tô Lâm has been closely associated with the worsening human rights situation, as the Formosa and the Trinh Xuan Thanh cases clearly illustrate.

In April 2016, the Formosa company caused an environmental disaster when it discharged heavily polluted waste off Vietnam’s central coast. This caused widespread damage in at least four provinces and sparked protests. Instead of prosecuting Formosa, Tô Lâm, then minister of public security and in charge of the environmental police, suppressed peaceful protests and had 220 people sentenced to a total of 133 years in prison, not including probation after release. He said he was protecting Formosa from what he called ‘hostile forces’ – essentially anyone who criticised the company.

The second case involves Trinh Xuan Thanh, a former vice chair of Hau Giang Province, who fled to Germany in 2016 after being accused of ‘deliberately violating state regulations, causing serious consequences’. He was abducted on German soil by the Vietnamese secret service, which is under the Ministry of Public Security, and returned to Vietnam. Tô Lâm was directly involved in this operation, which Germany condemned as a ‘scandalous violation’ of its sovereignty and a ‘gross breach of international law’.

Given Tô Lâm’s track record, we expect human rights conditions to worsen under his leadership as Vietnam descends into a police state where human rights and the rule of law are ignored. The already limited space for civil society in Vietnam has shrunk under his watch, and we expect this trend to continue.

What are the challenges facing civil society in Vietnam?

Tô Lâm’s rise to power has been marked by his consistent efforts to stifle dissent. Under his leadership, the authorities, particularly the Ministry of Public Security, have increasingly tightened their grip on civil society organisations (CSOs). They have implemented new decrees that overregulate the registration and management of foreign CSOs and applied stricter rules to domestic organisations.

They have also weaponised tax laws and the criminal code to target civil society leaders, charging them with offences such as tax evasion and ‘abuse of democratic freedoms’. This has led to the imprisonment of prominent activists, including environmental and labour rights advocates.

Independent CSOs are subject to strict surveillance, with some being dismantled or forced to reorganise to conform to the authorities. This was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which the authorities used as a pretext to impose further restrictions on civil society under the guise of public health measures.

Despite this repressive environment, some social service CSOs and philanthropic groups continue to operate and strive to make a positive impact. But their independence is severely restricted as they and their activists are constantly targeted.

What international support does Vietnam’s civil society need?

Human rights organisations and international bodies have raised concerns about the shrinking space for civil society in Vietnam. They have called for respect for freedoms of assembly, association and expression and urged the authorities to ease restrictions. While these statements are important, they must be accompanied by trade sanctions and other enforcement mechanisms. Words alone are not enough.

Unfortunately, human rights in Vietnam are also falling victim to geopolitics. As tensions with China escalate, the USA is increasingly seeing Vietnam as a counterweight to China. In this context, human rights and civic space are often sidelined, if not ignored altogether. We believe that a democratic Vietnam would be the best partner and ally in promoting a peaceful, open and stable Indo-Pacific region.

Even if Tô Lâm has a long way to go before he reaches a position comparable to Xi Jinping’s in China, consolidation of power is a general trend we’re seeing among the region’s communist states. Oddly enough, given how these two leaders came to power, it could be a sign that pressure for human rights and civic space, both domestically and internationally, is working. If the authorities feel compelled to respond by consolidating power and positioning figures like Tô Lâm to counter these movements, there is still hope we are on the right track.

Civic space in Vietnam is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Alliance for Vietnam’s Democracy through its webpage or Facebook page.

  Source

Cambodia’s Young Environmental Activists Pay a Heavy Price

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Labour, Natural Resources, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Tang Chhin Sothy/AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Aug 1 2024 (IPS) – It’s risky to try to protect the environment in authoritarian Cambodia. Ten young activists from the Mother Nature environmental group have recently been given long jail sentences. Two were sentenced to eight years on charges of plotting and insulting the king. Another seven were sentenced to six years for plotting, while one, a Spanish national banned from entering Cambodia, was sentenced in absentia.

Four of the activists were then violently dragged away from a peaceful sit-in they’d joined outside the court building. The five who’ve so far been jailed have been split up and sent to separate prisons, some far away from their families.

This is the latest in a long line of attacks on Mother Nature activists. The group is being punished for its work to try to protect natural resources, prevent water pollution and stop illegal logging and sand mining.

An autocratic regime

Cambodia’s de facto one-party regime tolerates little criticism. Its former prime minister, Hun Sen, ruled the country from 1985 until 2023, when he handed over to his son. This came shortly after a non-competitive election where the only credible opposition party was banned. It was the same story with the election in 2018. This suppression of democracy required a crackdown on dissenting voices, targeting civil society as well as the political opposition.

The authorities have weaponised the legal system. They use highly politicised courts to detain civil society activists and opposition politicians for long spells before subjecting them to grossly unfair trials. Campaigners for environmental rights, labour rights and social justice are frequently charged with vaguely defined offences under the Criminal Coder such as plotting and incitement. Last year, nine trade unionists were convicted of incitement after going on strike to demand better pay and conditions for casino workers.

In 2015 the government introduced the restrictive Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organisations (LANGO), which requires civil society organisations to submit financial records and annual reports, giving the state broad powers to refuse registration or deregister organisations. In 2023, Hun Sen threatened to dissolve organisations if they failed to submit documents.

The state also closely controls the media. People close to the ruling family run the four main media groups and so they mostly follow the government line. Independent media outlets are severely restricted. Last year the authorities shut down one of the last remaining independent platforms, Voice of Democracy. Self-censorship means topics such as corruption and environmental concerns remain largely uncovered.

This extensive political control is closely entwined with economic power. The ruling family and its inner circle are connected to an array of economic projects. Landgrabs by state officials are common. These means land and Indigenous people’s rights activists are among those targeted.

In 2023, courts sentenced 10 land activists to a year in jail in response to their activism against land grabbing for a sugar plantation. That same year, three people from the Coalition of Cambodian Farmer Community, a farmers’ rights group, were charged with incitement and plotting. The LANGO has also been used to prevent unregistered community groups taking part in anti-logging patrols.

The activity that saw the Mother Nature activists charged with plotting involved documenting the flow of waste into a river close to the royal palace in the capital, Phnom Pen. It’s far from the first time the group’s environmental action has earned the state’s ire. The government feels threatened by the fact that Mother Nature’s activism resonates with many young people.

Three of the group’s activists were convicted on incitement charges in 2022 after organising a protest march to the prime minister’s residence to protest against the filling in of a lake for construction. In 2023, Mother Nature delivered a petition urging the government to stop granting land to private companies in Kirirom National Park; there’s evidence of licences going to people connected to ruling party politicians. In response, the Ministry of Environment said Mother Nature was an illegal organisation and that its actions were ‘against the interests of Cambodian civil society’.

Media also get in trouble if they report on the sensitive issue of land exploitation. In 2023, the authorities revoked the licences of three media companies for publishing reports on a senior official’s involvement in land fraud. In 2022, two teams of reporters covering a deforestation operation were violently arrested.

Regional challenges

Repression of environmental activism isn’t limited to Cambodia. In neighbouring Vietnam, the one-party communist state is also cracking down on climate and environmental activists. In part this is because, as in Cambodia, climate and environmental activism is increasingly shining a light on the environmentally destructive economic practices of authoritarian leaders.

Cambodia’s creeping use of the charge of insulting the king to stifle legitimate dissent also echoes a tactic frequently used in Thailand, where the authorities have jailed young democracy campaigners for violating an archaic lèse majesté law that criminalises criticism of the king. Other repressive states are following its lead – including Cambodia, where the law on insulting the king was introduced when the crackdown was well underway in 2018.

Cambodia provides ample evidence of how the denial of democracy and the repression that comes with it enable environmentally destructive policies that further affect people’s lives and rights. The solution to protect the environment and prevent runaway climate change is less repression, more democracy and a more enabled civil society.

Cambodia’s international partners should emphasise this in their dealings with the state. They should press the authorities to release the jailed Mother Nature activists, who deserve to spend the coming years helping make their country a better place, not rotting in prison.

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

SUMMIT OF THE FUTURE: ‘The UN Secretary-General Underestimated the Difficulty of Reaching Consensus’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Environment, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainability, TerraViva United Nations

Jul 30 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the upcoming Summit of the Future with Renzo Pomi, who represents Amnesty International at the United Nations (UN) in New York.

Renzo Pomi

In September, world leaders will gather at the UN World Summit of the Future to adopt the Pact for the Future. Ahead of the summit, civil society, academia and the private sector have contributed to the pact’s zero draft. Civil society sees the process as an opportunity to strengthen commitments on the environment, human rights and social justice, and CIVICUS advocates for the inclusion of language on the protection and expansion of civic space. But much work remains to be done before, during and after the summit to ensure ambitious commitments are adopted and then realised.

How did the Summit of the Future come about?

In September 2021, the UN Secretary-General released a report, ‘Our Common Agenda’, outlining global challenges and proposing a summit for world leaders to address them. Originally scheduled for September 2023, the summit was postponed due to a lack of consensus and will now take place in September 2024. Just before the opening of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, world leaders will gather in New York to discuss the future and adopt by consensus an action-oriented document, the Pact for the Future.

The pact and its two annexes – the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations – will be the summit’s main outcome. It aims to address our global challenges through commitments in five thematic areas: sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance. The pact will address a wide range of challenges facing humanity and the international system, and will seek to make intergovernmental institutions such as the UN more fit for the purpose they were created for.

What has the process towards the draft pact been like, and what role has civil society played in it?

The drafting process has been largely a state-owned and state-exclusive process. Germany and Namibia have co-facilitated the negotiations and presented the zero draft in January and subsequent revisions in May and July 2024.

Civil society participation has been very limited. We rely mostly on friendly states for information, as we are not in the room when negotiations take place. After each draft was released, we were invited to submit our recommendations and participate in virtual consultations to discuss the content. But, while we value these opportunities, nothing replaces the chance to be actively involved in negotiations. When you hold a virtual meeting like this, what you get is a series of hasty statements, not a real dialogue. As a result, we’ve had to lobby states to champion our issues, and it’s unclear whether our views will be reflected in the pact.

While the co-facilitators are often blamed for this, the truth is that the process was agreed by all states. The UN Charter recognises civil society as an important stakeholder, as does the Secretary-General, but many states believe the UN should be exclusively state-run and civil society shouldn’t have a place in discussing important issues.

Further, relations between civil society and the UN in New York are particularly strained compared to Geneva, where there is a more established tradition of including civil society in discussions. And the UN’s financial crisis means there’s no investment in hybrid meetings, which allow civil society organisations (CSOs) that can’t afford to travel to have a voice in meetings.

What did you advocate should be including in the pact?

We made two submissions, one before the zero draft was circulated and the other commenting on it. We analysed the whole document and focused on ensuring that a human rights perspective was adopted in every measure. Our proposals covered issues from Security Council reform to increased civil society participation in the UN.

We have long argued that Security Council permanent members should refrain from vetoing or blocking credible resolutions on serious violations such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Unfortunately, this proposal is not accurately reflected on the draft. States may at the end agree to expand the Security Council, but otherwise most of the language simply reaffirms existing commitments, such as Article 27.3 of the Charter, which prevents states involved in conflicts voting on related resolutions but is currently ignored.

We also highlighted that CSOs face several barriers to engaging with the UN. The Economic and Social Council’s NGO Committee, which reviews applications for consultative status, often acts as a gatekeeper, unfairly denying access to CSOs that challenge the positions of particular states. We have proposed dismantling this committee and setting up an independent expert mechanism to assess applications on the basis of merit rather than political considerations. However, this proposal is unlikely to be included in the pact’s final draft.

How much real impact do you think the pact will have?

We hope some of our recommendations will be included in the pact, but the geopolitical climate suggests many will not. The Secretary-General has correctly identified the challenges, but he has underestimated the difficulty of reaching consensus on meaningful commitments. International cooperation is now almost non-existent. Today’s context resembles the Cold War, where there was no room for agreement on even basic issues. In the current circumstances, it was unrealistic for the Secretary-General to think he could launch such a massive undertaking and get an action-oriented document with real commitments for reform adopted.

It is said that even in the worst moments you have to push for the best. We may not get actionable commitments, but we may still get some good language and a minimum common denominator every country can agree on.

For the pact to have a real impact, global civil society needs to push for the strongest possible commitments and their implementation. In 2005, a similar summit ended with a decision to create the Human Rights Council in place of the discredited Commission on Human Rights. Now it’s very difficult to foresee getting commitments this specific, and as we approach the summit, proposals are being watered down. Civil society will have to be very creative in finding ways to use the watered-down language to demand change.

What’s next for civil society ahead of the summit?

In the days leading up to the summit, Summit of the Future Action Days will allow civil society, states and UN bodies to propose side events. Getting selected is very difficult, as requirements include sponsorship by two member states and one UN entity, and support by a coalition or network of CSOs. As a result, only a few side events will be approved.

As the summit approaches, civil society should focus on reviewing the second revision of the pact and identifying advocacy opportunities. Chances to advance our agenda will become more limited as September approaches. States will struggle to reach consensus on a final document and there will be no space to reopen closed discussions.

Once the pact is adopted, civil society will need to continue to push for critical issues and stay vigilant in monitoring its implementation.

Get in touch with Amnesty International through its website or Facebook and Instagram pages, and follow @amnesty on Twitter.

This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

  Source