‘The Election Is Just Another Tool to Keep Lukashenko in Power for as Long as Possible’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Dec 23 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the ongoing crackdown on civil society in Belarus with Natallia Satsunkevich, human rights defender and interim board member of the Viasna Human Rights Centre.

Belarusian authorities have stepped up arrests in a bid to stifle any remaining opposition to President Alexander Lukashenko, who is seeking a seventh term in the January 2025 presidential election. Over 1,200 people have been detained since the end of September, many for participating in online chats that have been used to organise protests since the 2020 election. The authorities describe these as part of an extremist network. Some of those arrested have been charged with conspiracy to seize power, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 15 years. Around 1,300 political prisoners are currently being held in overcrowded prisons, while opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya remains in exile.

Natallia Satsunkevich

How has the political atmosphere changed in the run-up to the presidential election?

As the presidential election approaches, the authorities have intensified their crackdown on civil society and political opposition. This isn’t new – repression has been escalating since the protests following the 2020 stolen election – but in recent months it has taken an even darker turn.

One of the regime’s main tools is the criminalisation of independent organisations and media. Viasna, for example, has been declared an ‘extremist formation’. This means anyone who interacts with us – whether by sharing information, giving an interview or offering support – risks being arrested and prosecuted. This level of repression has created a climate of fear where people are too afraid to speak out about human rights abuses or take part in activism.

There has also been an increase in arrests, house searches and interrogations. Many of those arrested during the 2020 protests are still in prison and new arrests are taking place almost every day. The political opposition inside the country has been effectively silenced, with most of its leaders imprisoned or driven into exile. It’s clear that Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime is determined to hold onto power at all costs.

Is there any question of the outcome being at stake?

Unfortunately, no. Elections in Belarus are so heavily manipulated that they’re little more than formalities to legitimise Lukashenko’s rule. We’ve been monitoring and campaigning for free and fair elections for years, along with groups like the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, but at the moment those conditions simply don’t exist.

The opposition has been completely sidelined. Many of its leaders are either in prison or have fled the country. Alternative candidates aren’t allowed to run, and any form of opposition campaigning is banned. The state-controlled media is completely one-sided, constantly pushing the narrative that Lukashenko has overwhelming public support, while silencing anyone who disagrees.

With no transparency or accountability, the outcome is already decided. This election is just another tool to keep Lukashenko in power for as long as possible.

What are the likely post-election scenarios?

After the election, things are likely to stay much the same. The regime is likely to continue its authoritarian rule and we have little hope for immediate change.

For Belarus to move towards democracy, the first step would be to release all political prisoners. Almost 1,300 people, including opposition leaders, activists and journalists, are currently behind bars on politically motivated charges. They should be allowed to participate in the political process.

The government must also end its campaign of repression. Widespread arrests, searches, interrogations and torture have created an atmosphere of fear that stifles any form of dissent. Reform of the police and judicial systems is essential to address this.

Belarus also needs genuinely free and fair elections. This means opposition candidates should be able to campaign openly and people must be able to vote without fear of retribution.

Finally, accountability for human rights abuses is crucial. Those responsible for torture, unlawful detention and silencing dissent must be held accountable. This is vital for restoring trust and building a democratic future.

How can the international community support democratic transition?

The international community has been a lifeline for the Belarusian people, and this support must continue. Financial aid and solidarity from democratic states, particularly the European Union and the USA, have enabled many activists, including myself and others who’ve had to leave Belarus for our own safety, to continue our work.

Public condemnation of the regime’s actions also helps. Even if it doesn’t lead to immediate change, it shows Belarusian people and the government that the world is watching and reminds the authorities that actions have consequences.

It is also important to seek accountability through international legal mechanisms. Since we can’t hold perpetrators to account inside Belarus, it is essential to seek justice outside the country. States such as Lithuania and Poland have already begun investigating crimes committed by the regime and have referred cases to the International Criminal Court. These efforts show that there is a global determination to hold those in power to account.

The crisis in Belarus must be recognised as an international issue and kept on the international agenda. The United Nations has described the regime’s actions as crimes against humanity, making it clear this is not just a domestic matter: it’s an international crisis that demands international attention and action.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Belarus: ‘Despite the repression, we haven’t halted our work for a single day’ Interview with Marina Kostylianchenko 16.Dec.2023
Belarus: ‘There is a pro-democracy civil society that opposes the war and advocates for democratic reforms’ Interview with Anastasiya Vasilchuk 22.Mar.2023
Belarus: a prison state in Europe CIVICUS Lens 15.Mar.2023

  Source

South Korea’s Democracy Defended

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Featured, Gender, Gender Identity, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images

LONDON, Dec 20 2024 (IPS) – Democracy is alive and well in South Korea. When President Yoon Suk Yeol tried to impose martial law, the public and parliamentarians united to defend it. Now Yoon must face justice for his power grab.

President under pressure

Yoon narrowly won the presidency in an incredibly tight contest in March 2022, beating rival candidate Lee Jae-myung by a 0.73 per cent margin. That marked a political comeback for one of South Korea’s two main political parties, the rebranded centre-right People Power Party, and a defeat for the other, the more progressive Democratic Party.

In a divisive campaign, Yoon capitalised on and helped inflame a backlash among many young men against the country’s emerging feminist movement.

South Korea had a MeToo moment in 2018, as women started to speak out following high-profile sexual harassment revelations. South Korea is one of the worst performing members on gender equality of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: it ranks third lowest for women’s political representation and last for its gender pay gap.

Some modest steps forward in women’s rights brought a disproportionate backlash. Groups styling themselves as defending men’s rights sprang up, their members claiming they were discriminated against in the job market. Yoon played squarely to this crowd, pledging to abolish the gender equality ministry. Exit polls showed that over half of young male voters backed him.

Human rights conditions then worsened under Yoon’s rule. His administration was responsible for an array of civic space restrictions. These included harassment and criminalisation of journalists, raids on trade union offices and arrests of their leaders, and protest bans. Media freedoms deteriorated, with lawsuits and criminal defamation laws having a chilling effect.

But the balance of power shifted after the 2024 parliamentary election, when the People Power Party suffered a heavy defeat. Although the Democratic Party and its allies fell short of the two-thirds majority required to impeach Yoon, the result left him a lame-duck president. The opposition-dominated parliament blocked key budget proposals and filed 22 impeachment motions against government officials.

Yoon’s popularity plummeted amid ongoing economic woes and allegations of corruption – sadly nothing new for a South Korean leader. The First Lady, Kim Keon Hee, was accused of accepting a Dior bag as a gift and of manipulating stock prices. It seems clear that Yoon, backed into a corner, lashed out and took an incredible gamble – one that South Korean people didn’t accept.

Yoon’s decision

Yoon made his extraordinary announcement on state TV on the evening of 3 December. Shamefully, he claimed the move was necessary to combat ‘pro-North Korean anti-state forces’, smearing those trying to hold him to account as supporters of the totalitarian regime across the border. Yoon ordered the army to arrest key political figures, including the leader of his party, Han Dong Hoon, Democratic Party leader Lee and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik.

The declaration of martial law gives the South Korean president sweeping powers. The military can arrest, detain and punish people without a warrant, the media are placed under strict controls, all political activity is suspended and protests are widely banned.

The problem was that Yoon had clearly exceeded his powers and acted unconstitutionally. Martial law can only be declared when there are extraordinary threats to the nation’s survival, such as invasion or armed rebellion. A series of political disputes that put the president under uncomfortable scrutiny clearly didn’t fit the bill. And the National Assembly was supposed to remain in session, but Yoon tried to shut it down, deploying armed forces to try to stop representatives gathering to vote.

But Yoon hadn’t reckoned with many people’s determination not to return to the dark days of dictatorship before multiparty democracy was established in 1987. People also had recent experience of forcing out an evidently corrupt president. In the Candlelight Revolution of 2016 and 2017, mass weekly protests built pressure on President Park Guen-hye, who was impeached, removed from office and jailed for corruption and abuse of power.

People massed outside the National Assembly in protest. As the army blocked the building’s main gates, politicians climbed over the fences. Protesters and parliamentary staff faced off against heavily armed troops with fire extinguishers, forming a chain around the building so lawmakers could vote. Some 190 made it in, and they unanimously repealed Yoon’s decision.

Time for justice

Now Yoon must face justice. Protesters will continue to urge him to quit, and a criminal investigation into the decision to declare martial law has been launched.

The first attempt to impeach Yoon was thwarted by political manoeuvring. People Power politicians walked out to prevent a vote on 7 December, apparently hoping Yoon would resign instead. But he showed no sign of stepping down, and a second vote on 14 December decisively backed impeachment, with 12 People Power Party members supporting the move. The vote was greeted with scenes of jubilation from the tens of thousands of protesters massed in freezing conditions outside the National Assembly.

Yoon is now suspended, with Prime Minister Han Duck-soo the interim president. The Constitutional Court has six months to hold an impeachment process. Polls show most South Koreans back impeachment, although Yoon still claims his move was necessary.

Democracy defended

South Korea’s representative democracy, like most, has its flaws. People may not always be happy with election results. Presidents may find it hard to work with a parliament that opposes them. But imperfect though it may be, South Koreans have shown they value their democracy and will defend it from the threat of authoritarian rule – and can be expected to keep mobilising if Yoon evades justice.

Thankfully, Yoon’s attacks on civic space hadn’t got to the stage where civil society’s ability to mobilise and people’s capacity to defend democracy had been broken down. Recent events and South Korea’s uncertain future make it all the more important that the civic space restrictions imposed by Yoon’s administration are reversed as quickly as possible. To defend against backsliding and deepen democracy, it’s vital to expand civic space and invest in civil society.

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

‘My Father Was Arbitrarily Arrested and Convicted for Denouncing Government Corruption’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Dec 17 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks with Ramón Zamora, son of Guatemalan journalist José Rubén Zamora, about restrictions on press freedom and the challenges of defending human rights in Guatemala.

Rubén Zamora is part of the CIVICUS Stand as My Witness campaign, which seeks the release of unjustly imprisoned human rights defenders. The veteran journalist, founder of Periódico Siglo 21 and renowned for his investigations into corruption, has been fighting unfounded accusations of money laundering for over two years. His legal situation took a turn for the worse recently when a court ordered his return to prison after a brief period of house arrest. As his family prepared to appeal, President Bernardo Arévalo denounced the court’s decision as an attack on freedom of expression.

Ramón Zamora

What was your father’s role in Guatemalan journalism and what led him to antagonise powerful forces?

My father comes from a family of journalists. His grandfather, Clemente Marroquín, was the founder of La Hora, one of the most important newspapers in Guatemalan history. In 1990, my father founded the media outlet Siglo 21. A transition to democracy was underway and he had understood that democracy couldn’t function without real freedom of expression, that is, when people aren’t able to express their ideas without fear. That’s why it was important to have a media outlet that, on top of providing information, also included a plurality of voices.

Siglo 21 opened up spaces for leftist thought, which earned it threats and attacks from sources linked to the army. In addition, from the outset it dealt with sensitive issues, which quickly put it in the crosshairs of many powerful figures. Threats and attacks soon followed for his investigations into corruption. In 1993, following a coup by then President Jorge Serrano Elías, who suspended the constitution and dissolved Congress, the presidential security service came looking for my father and the family was forced into hiding. However, my father continued to fight, publishing a banned edition of Siglo 21, which had been censored, and sharing information with international media.

After leaving Siglo 21, he founded El Periódico in 1996 and Nuestro Diario in 1998, always with the aim of continuing to investigate corruption. His investigations led to the jailing of several powerful people. Over the years he suffered arbitrary treatment, assassination attempts and kidnappings, but he continued his work, until 2022, when he was arbitrarily arrested and sentenced in retaliation for exposing corruption in the government of Alejandro Giammattei.

What were the charges that sent your father to prison?

He was accused of money laundering, extortion and influence peddling. It was alleged that he used the newspaper and his access to government sources to obtain privileged information to extort money from businesspeople and public officials. According to government officials, my father threatened to publish stories in the newspaper if they did not comply with his demands, and allegedly laundered the money from these extortions through the newspaper.

To understand the justification for his arrest, we need to consider the broader context of attacks on the newspaper. Since 2013, the newspaper has suffered economic pressure and threats from government officials, such as then Vice-president Roxana Baldetti, who called our clients to threaten them with investigations if they continued to support the newspaper with advertising. This reduced the paper’s income by more than half. To get around the pressure, my father finally started accepting donations from people who wanted to remain anonymous. This was one of the reasons he was accused of laundering undeclared money. My father was criminalised for defending freedom of expression and denouncing corruption.

How did your father experience these years of arbitrary detention?

At first it was very hard because he was held in a military prison, in a very small cell, completely isolated from other prisoners. In the same prison were people convicted of corruption thanks to the reporting he had published, which put him in great danger. He soon started receiving constant threats.

In the first few days, his cell was searched several times, and bedbugs found their way into his bed, causing severe bites all over his body. He was unable to sleep because of the constant noise, as there was construction going on next to his cell. It was all very stressful, both physically and emotionally. There were times when he thought he would never get out alive. To make matters worse, we were often denied authorisation to enter the prison or given ridiculous excuses, which kept him in a constant state of uncertainty.

He also suffered greatly during court hearings. There was one judge who went out of his way to prevent him having access to a proper defence. We had to change lawyers several times and many of them were persecuted for defending my father.

My brother and I worked to keep the newspaper afloat, even though several journalists were forced into exile. A few months ago we managed to get my father released to house arrest, but his case continued to be full of irregularities and a month later the benefit of house arrest was lifted. We are still waiting for the appeals court to review the decision, but it is likely he will have to return to prison this week or next. My father is still fighting for his freedom and a fair trial to prove his innocence.

How can the international community help?

The international community has played a very important role in the whole process. We were able to get my father out of prison in large part because of pressure from organisations such as Amnesty International, CIVICUS, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and others who spoke out and mobilised.

As a family, we have always felt supported. We are now awaiting the resolution of the amparo appeal – a petition to protect constitutional rights, which could allow my father to continue his struggle from home. This would be ideal, although we are still awaiting a final decision.

The international community must continue to defend human rights and freedom of expression and support the media, particularly in countries where corruption and impunity prevail.

Get in touch
Website
Twitter

See also
Guatemala: ‘Corrupt elites see defenders of justice as a threat to their interests and try to silence them’ Interview with Virginia Laparra 30.Aug.2024
Guatemala: ‘Disregard for the will of the people expressed at the ballot box is the greatest possible insult to democracy’ Interview with Jorge Santos 13.Jan.2023
Guatemala: ‘Our democracy is at risk in the hands of political-criminal networks’ Interview with Evelyn Recinos Contreras 04.Jul.2023

  Source

‘Quilombola Communities Live in Fear Because the Laws That Are Supposed to Protect Them Are Ignored’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Education, Featured, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Dec 4 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses threats to the security, rights and ancestral lands of Brazil’s quilombola communities with Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos, leader and activist of the Pitanga dos Palmares Quilombola community in Bahia state.

Founded by formerly enslaved Africans, quilombola communities represent a legacy of resilience and freedom. But their way of life is increasingly disrupted by harmful infrastructure projects and their members face constant threats from land grabbers and speculators. Community leaders demanding justice and reparations are met with intimidation and violence while public institutions look the other way. The National Coordination of Rural Black Quilombola Communities urges the Brazilian government to grant them protection and ensure accountability.

Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos

What are quilombola communities, and what’s the focus of their struggle?

Quilombola communities were born out of resistance to slavery. My community, Quilombo Pitanga, was founded by the descendants of those who fought for freedom when slavery was officially abolished in 1888. Even after slavery ended, the struggles continued because former slave owners and landowners continued to exploit and persecute our people.

Today, quilombola communities continue to fight for our land and culture. It’s important to us to preserve our heritage for future generations because it’s a testament to the strength of our ancestors, our survival and our resilience.

We advocate for justice and land rights through a combination of local and international strategies. We work with organisations such as the National Articulation of Quilombola Communities, which brings together quilombo leaders from across Brazil. We also hold protests, develop public awareness campaigns and work with international organisations to draw attention to our struggles.

What threats does your community face and who’s responsible?

My community faces significant threats, particularly from drug traffickers and powerful business interests. These threats became very real when my great-grandmother, María Bernadete Pacífico, was murdered by drug traffickers last year. She fought for the preservation of our culture and the wellbeing of younger generations, and I believe that’s what got her killed. She was part of a human rights protection programme, but the promised protection failed when she needed it most. My father was also murdered in 2017, during a battle against the construction of a landfill near our territory.

After my great-grandmother was killed, I haven’t been able to visit my family or enter the community. I live in constant fear, watching over the community and its heritage from afar.

Our community also faces institutional racism, reflected in the fact that the state built a prison on our land but fails to provide basic services such as schools and hospitals. We lack any public security, as a result of which some believe they can act with impunity. The prison, which was inaugurated in 2007, was supposed to be a shoe factory that would bring prosperity to the community. Suddenly, it was announced that it would be a prison, and it brought rising criminality and contamination of water resources and wetlands. Quilombo Pitanga dos Palmares hasn’t been the same since.

The bigger problem is that many quilombola communities, including ours, own valuable land. My community has a large territory, so we’ve been targeted by powerful interests that view our land as prime real estate for expansion. In 2012 we fought against the construction of an industrial road that would have cut through our land. There were large corporations involved, which made this fight particularly hard.

How do authorities respond?

The state not only turns a blind eye, leaving us vulnerable to exploitation, but it’s also complicit in these attacks because it protects the interests of big business rather than people. INEMA, the agency responsible for granting environmental licences to companies, has been investigated for corruption that has led to the approval of projects that harm communities like ours.

The authorities say they care about our safety, but the reality is different. The laws that are supposed to protect us are ignored and often the government is either unconcerned or in collusion with those causing harm.

What support do quilombola communities need?

Several issues need immediate attention, including securing our land rights, gaining access to basic services such as health and education and preserving our cultural heritage. A practical issue that needs attention is the toll we are forced to pay to enter the city, which constitutes arbitrary discrimination and isolates us from the wider community.

We are fighting the prison built on our land and the expansion of harmful companies that threaten our environment. We need more than words; we need tangible action, including stronger laws to protect us.

We need international support because local and national authorities often ignore or dismiss our struggles. Financial support is crucial, particularly for community leaders under threat. Many of us, including myself, face death threats. Our lives are far from normal and we need resources to ensure the safety of our families and communities.

United Nations human rights agencies could play a vital role in protecting our rights and securing the support we need. Unfortunately, despite local efforts to raise awareness, we often feel isolated in our struggles.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram

SEE ALSO
Brazil: a step forward for Indigenous peoples’ rights CIVICUS Lens 20.Oct.2023
Brazil back on the green track CIVICUS Lens 21.Jul.2023
Brazil: ‘If Bolsonaro continues as president, it is a threat to the Amazon and therefore to humanity’ Interview with Daniela Silva 21.Sep.2022

  Source

COP29 Falls Short on Finance

Posted on by admin

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’

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