Iconic Image Makes Trump the Ultimate Hero

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

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

ATLANTA, Georgia, Jul 19 2024 (IPS) – Republican Vice-Presidential nominee JD Vance and other speakers at the GOP Convention gleefully referenced the party’s latest icon: a wounded Donald Trump with blood on his face raising his fist in defiance beneath Old Glory’s stars and stripes.

The MAGA party realizes that they have a powerful symbol that will likely return Trump to the White House, because symbols are supremely powerful for both politics and religion. Associated Press photographer Evan Vucci captured the image, one of the most iconic ever recorded in American history. It fits perfectly into the Republican Campaign theme—“Trump is a hero and only he can save us.” The only other comparable photograph is the unforgettable one showing embattled Marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima during WW II.

Vucci’s photograph framed a bloody former President, wounded in the assassination attempt, heroically pumping his fist in defiance beneath a red, white, and blue flag against a clear blue sky. It was the perfect photo, taken at a moment of extreme peril for American democracy, and sure to win a Pulitzer Prize.

It could be the key visual message that motivates people to side with Trump as a hero and propel him back to the White House. Photojournalist Doug Mills of the New York Times snapped a remarkable photo of the bullet in mid-air just beyond Trump, but Vucci’s stirring image of the wounded former president conveys a much more impactful message of heroism and patriotism.

Americans clearly prefer a tough, vigorous, even pugnacious and younger male leader (even if the image is false) to an old, decrepit President, especially one stammering to express himself and now sidelined with Coronavirus.

MAGA Republicans insist that people should vote for their hero Trump instead of Biden, pictured as a weak old man, or heaven forbid, by a scrappy female like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, or even Republican Nikki Haley.

Aging leaders have been required to prove their virility from time to time throughout history—in ancient Egypt by running around a course, and in Communist China by swimming, or more likely floating, for ten miles in the Yangtze River, as did Mao Tse-tung in 1966.

His claim of fitness, especially in the photo of him swimming, became an icon across China and revived his political fortunes after the disaster of the Great Cultural Revolution.

Americans consider themselves to be a tough breed. That in turn requires a macho man to be our leader. Even if Trump is not really that, the picture of a defiant Trump surviving an assassin’s bullet and pumping his fist is an incredibly powerful icon at this moment of destiny in the nation’s politics.

There were no photos when Lincoln was shot and the Kennedy assassination photos show blurs in the back of a speeding convertible. The only other iconic photo to stir the emotions of patriotic Americans with equally intense feelings would be that snapshot by photographer Joe Rosenthal Showing US Marines raising the flag on Mount Suribachi.

That picture captured American patriotism so perfectly that it was later sculpted into a colossal statue near the US Capitol in Washington.

Not many people know about semasiography—the science of symbols—but throughout history symbols have had an underlying, supremely powerful influence on religion, politics, and human behavior. This photo of Trump, like the one of the marines, has the capacity to impact people at a visceral level and therefore to change human behavior on a large scale.

There is no question of the overwhelming influence of such a potent symbol at this point in an evenly balanced and fiercely divided, nation.

The way symbols work is like this: they are simple, convey meaning in a generalized sense, and have the capacity to rally multitudes of people, sometimes continuing to evoke allegiance for thousands of years. Many national flags in the modern era include symbols.

The red, white, and blue of the American flag can cause tears to flow, pride to swell the chest, and infuse soldiers with the courage to face cannons on the battlefield.

One of the most omnipresent symbols worldwide is the Christian Cross, which has provided meaning and identity for millions of people over thousands of years. The Nazi Swastika and the Hammer and Sickle rallied Germans and Russians, functioning in a similar way for unbelievably vast numbers of people during WW II.

The swastika, or broken cross, was an ancient Aryan cultural sign, meaning to the Germans “Deutchland Uber Alles,” the racial-political creed of Germany. Hitler was delighted when he found it, knowing he could use it to rally the nation to his banner.

The Soviet hammer and sickle dominated great parts of the globe for much of the Twentieth Century, signifying the rise of the Proletariat. During the Vietnam War, millions of college students protested wearing the peace sign in support of the anti-war movement.

A symbol can carry a different meaning for millions of people, allowing each individual to put his or her own meaning into it, often leading to action. In short, a symbol is a way to capture and intensify personal feelings.

An appropriate and timely icon can be used to lure, move, or drive masses of people toward a desired goal, even if its message is vague and diffuse.

Several modern psychiatrists have focused on symbolism, beginning of course with Freud. The study of semasiography became a major preoccupation of his most prominent successor, Jung. Both knew the power of symbols.

Soon the icon of a defiant Trump—the ultimate American tough guy—will appear on t-shirts and coffee mugs, helping to build a different national culture than the one bequeathed to Americans by Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and others of the Greatest Generation.

This new political culture has already shown its true colors—dominance, retribution, reaction, discrimination, with threats of violence and coercion as the new mechanism of control. Sadly, this is the way history works. Change is coming—prepare for it.

James E. Jennings is President of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Rights Groups Demand Governments Protect Exiled Journalists, Dissidents

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Freedom of Expression

Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, briefs reporters at UN Headquarters. Credit: Manuel Elías/UN

Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, briefs reporters at UN Headquarters. Credit: Manuel Elías/UN

BRATISLAVA, Jul 19 2024 (IPS) – Rights groups have called for governments to do more to combat transnational repression as a series of recent reports show growing numbers of exiled journalists, political dissidents and rights defenders are being targeted by autocratic regimes in an attempt to silence them.

They say governments must do more to deal with the repression, which takes the form of online harassment, surveillance, enforced disappearances, physical attacks and sometimes even killings, to protect the safety of these people.

“We have seen an increase in transnational repression, tied into the rise in authoritarianism around the world in general. Generally, there is a growing awareness of this complex problem among host countries and a willingness to do something about it.

“But more work needs to be done in some areas and governments need to support exiled journalists and understand the vital importance of the work they do,” Fiona O’Brien, UK Bureau Director at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), told IPS.

The scale of the problem has been laid bare in a number of reports in recent months.

In February, rights group Freedom House released a report documenting scores of attacks, including assassinations, abductions and assaults, carried out by governments against people outside their borders in 2023.

Naming Russia, Cambodia, Myanmar, Turkmenistan and China as the biggest perpetrators, it also reported on the first known cases of transitional repression sanctioned by a number of governments, including the regimes of Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Myanmar, Sierra Leone and Yemen.

The group said that 44 countries—more than a fifth of the world’s national governments—have attempted to silence dissidents, activists, political opponents and members of ethnic or religious minorities beyond their own borders in the last ten years, with 1,034 recorded direct, physical incidents of transnational repression.

Meanwhile, at the end of June, while presenting a report on transnational repression, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, raised concerns not just about increasing incidents of transnational repression, but host countries’ responses to it.

“Too often, states are either unwilling for political reasons or unable for lack of capacity or resources to protect and support journalists in exile. Journalists should not be treated as political pawns but as human beings in distress who, at great cost to themselves, are contributing to the realization of our human right to information,” Khan said.

Following the report, scores of governments issued a joint statement condemning the repression and committing to coordinated action to help people being targeted and to hold accountable those behind any attacks. But it did not spell out any specific measures that should be implemented to do this.

Rights groups say that concrete steps must be taken by host governments to address the problem both in their own countries, and to confront those regimes perpetrating such acts.

Phil Lynch, Executive Director at the non-profit organisation International Service for Human Rights, said such action should involve host states not only providing comprehensive protection and support to those at risk of acts of transnational repression, but also measures, to undermine the capabilities of regimes to target people abroad.

He said host states must ensure they do not support or acquiesce in acts of transnational repression, such as through extradition or refoulement to states engaged in the persecution of human rights defenders; do not provide or export the tools or technologies of transnational repression, such as spyware and arms, to repressive states; must build awareness and law enforcement capabilities to respond to acts of transnational repression; and publicly denounce, investigate and pursue accountability for acts of transnational repression, including through sanctions and diplomatic repercussions.

“They should also prioritise human rights in foreign policy and relations both at bilateral and multilateral levels, adopting a principled and consistent approach to human rights in all situations, without selectivity and without discrimination,” he told IPS.

The lack of any serious consequences for regimes using transnational repression is helping perpetuate its widescale use, experts say.

“Governments don’t seem to be shying away from using transnational repression. This is likely because there has been very little accountability even in the most well-publicized cases, like the assassination of [Saudi dissident writer] Jamal Khashoggi. Since governments aren’t paying a price for targeting dissidents abroad, there’s little reason for them not to attempt it,” Yana Gorokhovskaia, Research Director, Strategy and Design, at Freedom House, told IPS.

But it is not just host country governments that could do more, experts say.

“Most of the harassment and attacks are online. Big tech have been totally absent from [efforts to fight transnational repression]. Governments have to hold big tech to account on this,” said O’Brien.

“Increasingly, acts of transnational repression occur online or are technology-facilitated. Technology providers have a duty to conduct due diligence to ensure their technologies and tools are not used, directly or indirectly, to restrict or violate human rights, including through acts of transnational repression. Governments should also legislate to mandate that human rights due diligence is undertaken by companies,” added Lynch.

It appears that some countries are becoming increasingly aware of the issue and willing to improve how they tackle it.

O’Brien said this following an RSF report on harassment of Iranian journalists in the UK released earlier this year. British authorities have “shown a lot of interest in how to tackle this problem better,”  while Freedom House has highlighted how President Joe Biden’s administration has made addressing the issue a priority across law enforcement and security agencies.

Gorokhovskaia also pointed out that over the last four years various countries have adopted policies to mitigate the threat posed by transnational repression, including improved training for police and security agencies and more outreach to communities that can be targeted.

“Countries have also become more aware of how international organizations, like Interpol, can be misused for transnational repression and taken steps to address this (by examining Interpol notices from certain perpetrator countries),” she said.

But research from other groups shows a much less reassuring picture.

A report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) said some host country governments were not only failing to ensure adequate protective measures for those at risk but were even actively facilitating transnational repression.

UN special rapporteur Khan also warned of host states becoming enablers “of transnational repression, for instance, by colluding in abductions instigated by the home state.”

Some alleged cases of such facilitation involve ostensibly stable, democratic, western states.

Abdulrahman Al-Khalidi, a political activist and a known dissident, arrived in Bulgaria in October 2021.

A campaigner for human rights and advocate for democratic reforms, he had fled his home country in the wake of mass arrests following the Arab Spring.

But since crossing into Bulgaria and claiming asylum, he has faced a complicated and, he says, at times incomprehensible legal battle over authorities’ continued refusal to grant him asylum and release him from detention at the migration centre despite court rulings in his favour.

He is facing deportation to Saudi Arabia, where, he told IPS, he will almost certainly be killed.

Al-Khalidi believes the Saudi secret service is behind the Bulgarian authorities’ blocking of his asylum. He says that during questioning by agency officials, he was told they were working with Saudi authorities on his case and that Saudi officials wanted him returned to Saudi Arabia. The Bulgarian state security agency has repeatedly said Al-Khalidi is a threat to national security, thereby blocking his asylum and release from detention.

Speaking to IPS in early July as he began a hunger strike while at a migrant detention centre near the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, where he has been held for the last three years, Al-Khalidi had a warning for governments hosting exiled dissidents and journalists.

“We live in a time full of international turmoil in which younger generations believe in anarchism more than they believe in democratic principles. This is very dangerous. The blame for this is fully borne by politicians who benefit from this and whose actions contradict the principles of the state, subsequently raising generations who lose their faith in both,” he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Kanak Ambition for Independence Is Defiant Following Political Turmoil in New Caledonia

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Indigenous Rights

Kanak Pro-Independence supporters display the Kanak flag during a rally in the streets of Noumea prior to New Caledonia's first referendum on Independence in 2018. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

Kanak Pro-Independence supporters display the Kanak flag during a rally in the streets of Noumea prior to New Caledonia’s first referendum on Independence in 2018. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

NOUMEA, New Caledonia , Jul 17 2024 (IPS) – It’s been 26 years since a peace agreement, the Noumea Accord, was signed following an outbreak of conflict in the 1980s between Kanak islanders and French armed forces in the French overseas territory of New Caledonia.

But the eruption of turbulent protests and unrest again two months ago has shown that the cleavage of indigenous political grievances with the French state remains deep in this group of islands located east of Australia in the southwest Pacific.

The centre of New Caledonia’s capital, Noumea, a popular holiday destination in the Pacific Islands, is usually abuzz with tourists patronizing sidewalk cafes. But many of the streets, now patrolled by French police, are deserted and eerily quiet.

The protests, which began in mid-May, escalated to armed clashes between activists and French security forces, resulting in ten deaths. And the destruction of homes, public buildings and looting of shops and businesses has had a devastating impact on the small island society. The cost of the damage is estimated to be more than USD 1 billion; at least 7,000 people have lost jobs and incomes, and the territory’s economy has suffered a major downturn.

Barricades were erected in the streets of Noumea when confrontations escalated between Pro-Independence activists and French police in May following the French Parliament's adoption of electoral reforms in New Caledonia. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

Barricades were erected in the streets of Noumea when confrontations escalated between Pro-Independence activists and French police in May following the French Parliament’s adoption of electoral reforms in New Caledonia. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

The unrest has revealed the gaping fracture between France’s determination to retain control of the territory and the indigenous Kanak islanders, who are riled at lack of progress toward their call for self-determination.

“We protested in the streets. We wanted to say to the French state, you must respect the Kanaks because France voted for the reforms without consent from us,” Jacques (his name has been changed), a Kanak activist in Noumea, told IPS.

He was speaking of the adoption of electoral changes in New Caledonia by the French Parliament, which would have opened the electoral roll to tens of thousands of recent migrant settlers, the majority from Europe.

About 41 percent of New Caledonia’s population is indigenous and many believe it would have led to the declining influence of their vote against rising numbers of Loyalists in future elections and referendums. The changing demographic balance between Kanaks and non-Kanaks is a longstanding grievance.

The uprising in the 1980s was driven by grievances about land dispossession, poverty, inequality, the absence of civil and political rights, and France’s policy of promoting migration from France to New Caledonia.

While French President Emmanuel Macron suspended the electoral reforms in mid-June, many Pro-Independence supporters are unappeased.

Jacques is among a group of Kanak activists who have set up a campaign site next to a main road on the outskirts of the capital. They are sitting around a table under a marquee, surrounded by flags and banners.

“We want our country to be decolonized, as it is written in the Noumea agreement. The French state is only interested in dominating the population here. If the French state stays here, we will have more violence,” Jacques claims.

The French government agreed in the 1998 Noumea Accord to grant New Caledonia more governing powers, recognition of Kanak culture and right to consultation, restrictions on the local electoral roll allowing only Kanaks and long-term residents to vote and the holding of referendums on its future political status.

But by 2021, three referendums had been held, all with majority outcomes, to remain part of France. There was a 43.33 percent vote for Independence in the first referendum in 2018, which increased to 46.74 percent in the second in 2020. But Kanaks, severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, boycotted the third referendum in 2021. The overwhelming Loyalist vote of 96.5 percent has never been accepted by Pro-Independence political parties, such as the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS).

“We firmly support the call by FLNKS for the UN to declare the result of the third referendum null and void due to the non-participation of the people of Kanaky. Voter turnout was below 50 percent of registered voters; hence, it cannot be taken as the legitimate wish of the silent majority,” the sub-regional inter-governmental organization, the Melanesian Spearhead Group, stated in 2021.

Kanak separatists’ determination to keep their aspirations alive, even though options for changing the political status quo through referendums have been exhausted, has led to an increasingly polarized political landscape. Some entrenched Loyalists believe that the French state should “take over the New Caledonian government because of all the political problems that we have,” Catherine Ris, President of the University of New Caledonia in Noumea, told IPS. And, “on the Pro-Independence side, we do not hear the moderate people anymore.”

The recent mobilization of the Field Action Coordinating Cell (CCAT) by the Pro-Independence Caledonian Union party was a sign of some Kanaks’ belief that their demands are not being met through the political process. The core group of activists were a major force behind the recent protests and the Cell’s leader, Christian Tein, is currently being held in a jail in France on charges related to the unrest. Similarly, the major presence of youths on the streets in May is evidence that a new generation has lost faith in the pace of social and political change.

“The younger people want the change now because in their lives they have experienced and seen a lot of hardship—the persecution of the Kanak people, the difficulties of getting a job,” Jacques emphasized. An estimated 45 percent of people in New Caledonia who don’t have a high school certificate are indigenous, and the Kanak unemployment rate is reported to be as high as 38 percent.

Yet the representation of Kanaks in the territory’s government and politics has steadily increased over the past two decades. The number of seats held by Pro-Independence politicians in New Caledonia’s 54 seat Congress rose from 18 to 25 between 2004 and 2014, while Loyalists witnessed a decrease from 36 to 29 seats, reports Australia’s Lowy Institute for International Policy.

In 2021, Louis Mapou, the first Kanak Pro-Independence President of the government, was elected. And, following the French national election this month, Emmanuel Tjibaou, a Kanak leader from the rural North Province, was voted in as one of New Caledonia’s two members of the National Assembly in Paris.

In the wider region, New Caledonia’s self-determination movement has the international support of other Pacific Island countries, especially those that have indigenous Melanesian populations, such as Papua New Guinea and Fiji, as well as Azerbaijan and Russia. And the French overseas territory has been on the United Nations’ Decolonization List since 1986.

Yet there are New Caledonians who are concerned about the viability of a New Caledonian state. The territory relies heavily on France’s fiscal support, which amounts to 20 percent of the local gross domestic product (GDP) and pays for public services, local economic development programs and civil service salaries.

“We have a good economy here,” Marcieux, a Frenchman who has lived in New Caledonia for 30 years, told IPS in Noumea. “It is easy to speak of independence, but, in reality, it is very difficult. You need a way to make independence.”

But, until the yawning political divisions laid bare by the events of May are addressed, it will be difficult for New Caledonia’s leaders to present a united will to President Macron and the French Parliament located more than 16,000 kilometres away.

However, Tjibaou, the new member of the French National Assembly, is the focus of hope that meaningful dialogue can emerge from the recent conflict. He told local media soon after his election this month that “we all have to offer a framework for discussions to resume between the three partners, which are France, the FLNKS and the Loyalists… we have to capitalize on this.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

The Winds of War

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

The aftermath of a missile strike on the center of Kyiv. July 2024. Credit: UNICEF Ukraine

ATLANTA, Georgia, Jul 10 2024 (IPS) – Herman Wouk’s 1971 novel The Winds of War traced the romance, bravery, fear, and faith required for American youths to join the military, deploy to the war zones, and confront the mighty Axis threat in the lead-up to WW II. It later became a dramatic TV series.

Today multitudes around the world are increasingly affected by ongoing conflicts, or are living in societies so disordered that they might even welcome war as a solution to their problems.

The news on just one day in June 2024 was not reassuring: The US and NATO agreed to unleash Ukraine to attack Russia; Israel thumbed its nose at American demands to end its genocidal war in Gaza; Hezbollah bombarded northern Israel for the umpteenth time and Israel reciprocated.

Yemen exchanged missile attacks with US warships in the Red Sea; while Israel and Iran engaged in slinging hundreds of Intercontinental ballistic missiles at each other.

Meanwhile, China announced that any attempt to award sovereignty to Taiwan would receive a strong military response. Only a few days later on July 4 at Astana in Kazakhstan, Russia and China convened a bloc of their Eurasian allies for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to stake out a policy of resistance to Euro-American control of the world economy.

Equally sobering, Japan and the Philippines have just initiated a defense alliance that echoes Japan’s security zone posture in WW II. All these moves signify that the great powers are indeed readying for war.

Elsewhere major regional wars in Sudan and Congo are ongoing; Haiti is in bloody chaos, and the same is true of several countries in West Africa, namely Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, which recently formed the Alliance of Sahel States to oppose the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Political destabilization within nations is in the balance everywhere, from Myanmar and Bangladesh to Europe and Latin America, with an astounding political division in the United States as well. What could possibly go wrong?

The real problem in America and the West is one of cultural fatigue, with a lack of clear focus on what course to follow, as we had in both World Wars and the Cold War. A “War to End Wars,” like the WW I rallying cry, would not fly today.

Neither would “Make the World Safe for Democracy” as both world wars aimed to do; or “Better Dead than Red,” the slogan of the Cold War. Instead, it’s “Ho-hum, another war.” Not very inspiring.

The Ostrich is famous for sticking its head in the sand when danger approaches. With wars simmering all around, Americans may be practicing that same tactic. There was a disquieting moment at the June 6 D-Day ceremony in Normandy commemorating the 80th anniversary of the allied assault on the Nazi defenses during WW II.

In her prayer, US Army Chaplain Karen Meeker gave thanks for those who sacrificed their lives and blessed the surviving heroes at the ceremony, but also used an ominous phrase: “As war clouds gather….”

Does she know something the rest of us don’t? Probably so, and it is disquieting. War clouds are indeed gathering. All we need to do is pay attention to the news, listen to the statements of key leaders of many of the great powers, and read the headlines. It is hard to miss the central theme: that the world is becoming more and more ungovernable.

At a conference in Tallinn, Estonia during May, Yale Historian Timothy Snyder suggested that the present time reminds him of Europe in 1938, just before the start of WW II. That should frighten everybody. His warning means that unless something extraordinary prevents it, an expanding, generalized conflict may lie ahead.

Among today’s most urgent problems are the ongoing genocidal war in Gaza, the bloody and seemingly endless Russia-Ukraine War, and regional wars in Sudan, Congo, and Myanmar.

The growing East-West economic divide and the North-South poverty gap appear intractable. If these conflicts expand, global civilization is facing a world of hurt.

Maybe that’s why a tough guy image like that cultivated by our more pugnacious presidents like Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt remains so appealing today, along with a larger than life “John Wayne” type of fictional character. However, it’s never that simple, and there is always a price to be paid.

Roosevelt’s son Quentin died in the very war his father advocated so fiercely. The Greek historian Herodotus recorded the sage but painful observation that, “In times of peace, sons bury their fathers; in times of war, fathers bury their sons.”

What then is to be done? Perhaps the US could start by ending support for the blood-lust killing of so many defenseless civilians in Gaza. All it would take is for President Biden to have the guts to say no to an ally and mean it. On Taiwan vs. China and Iran vs. Israel and the US, why not sit and talk with our adversaries?

That simple tactic has worked before. Why not at least start a meaningful peace process in Sudan and Congo? It may take a long time, but peace is always better than war.

At the US Academics for Peace conferences we convened in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Sudan over the decades before and after the US invasion of Iraq, we advocated the principle that dialogue is essential or conflict is inevitable.

Why not try? It might work.

James E. Jennings, PhD is President of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Argentina: Civil Society’s Urgent Call to Protect Rights

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Environment, Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

First Round of the elections in Argentina in 2023. Credit: Midia Ninja

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, Jul 2 2024 (IPS) – Between the Mafia and the State, I prefer the Mafia. The mafia has codes, it keeps its promises, it doesn’t lie, it’s competitive. If a company pollutes a river, where is the damage? The sale of organs is a market like any other. Abortion should be considered “aggravated murder”.

These are just a couple of quotes from former TV pundit Javier Milei, now president of Argentina, as he makes anti-progressism his trademark, borrowying from the ready-made discourse of the globalalt-right. He claims that global warming is “another lie of socialism”.

In recent months, Argentina has witnessed a significant shift under his new administration that threatens to undermine the very fabric of its civil society and democratic governance.

On June 12th, there was a violent crackdown on protesters outside the National Congress, involving the use of batons, tear gas, and rubber bullets. Several individuals were arrested arbitrarily and subsequently labeled as “terrorists” by the government, a move clearly intended to intimidate civil society and criminalize protest. These detainees have been transferred to federal prisons, where reports indicate continued abuse, including the use of pepper spray, physical violence, and denial of basic rights.

Last Friday, the government sent another controversial bill to Congress looking to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 13, even though minors commit less than 1% of serious crimes in Argentina. A proposal that was labelled by opposers as “pure smoke and mirrors.”

Since taking office, President Javier Milei’s administration has received significant international criticism, including from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which has scheduled a hearing on July 11th to address the situation.

“A President proud to repress”, this is what various media across Argentina wrote as Milei went as far as accusing protesters of being “terrorists” and said police violence prevented a “coup d’état”.

These alarming development mark a stark contrast to the country’s long-standing commitment to democracy and human rights, a commitment that has been painstakingly nurtured since the end of its brutal military dictatorship in 1983.

Moreover, this change of administration has been accompanied by an abrupt “retreat” of the state from its historic role as guarantor of the rights of its citizens. This abdication by the State of its essential responsibilities adds even more concerns to the already alarming measures explicitly restricting civic space.

Javier Milei’s aggressive and theatrical style – from superhero costumes to wielding a chainsaw to illustrate his plans to cut down the size of the state – has led some to compare him to Donald Trump in the US or Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil. This shift, alongside the blurring of ideological lines between the Peronist and Together for Change coalitions, has implications for Argentina’s political landscape and on civic space.

Argentina’s civil society organizations, long the backbone of its democratic resilience and human rights advocacy, face unprecedented challenges.

Legislative proposals aimed at restricting their activities, coupled with limitations on freedom of expression and the right to protest, have sent shockwaves through the community. The administration’s policies include drastic public spending cuts, the closure of state institutions dedicated to women’s rights and access to justice, and a suspension of participation in international events related to the 2030 Agenda.

A recent protocol, announced by Security Minister Patricia Bullrich, involves identifying protesters through various means and then billing them for the costs incurred by deploying security forces to police the demonstrations. Human rights activists, opposition legislators, and organizations like the Centre of Legal Studies (CELS) argue that these measures effectively criminalize legitimate protests and violate constitutional rights. The government’s allies, such as legislator José Luis Espert, have responded with aggressive rhetoric: “Prison or bullet”.

Recently, a violent attack against a member of the organization H.I.J.O.S., known for its fight against impunity for the crimes of the last civil-military dictatorship and for the defense of human rights, has been denounced. This attack, characterized by its brutality and strong political message, reflects an alarming increase in violence against activists and civil society organizations. The attackers, by leaving the acronym VLLC (“Viva la libertad, carajo!”), associated with President Javier Milei, insinuate a disturbing link between government rhetoric and violent actions directed against “dissidents”.

These proposals, exacerbated by the country’s ongoing economic and social crises, pose new hurdles for civil society’s ability to operate and advocate for public interests.

Argentina’s history, marked by the dark years of dictatorship between 1976 and 1983, serves as a reminder of the cost of silence and inaction. The country’s journey to reclaim democracy and human rights was arduous, characterized by relentless efforts to acknowledge and compensate the victims of past repression. The current administration’s move to revise policies related to memory, truth, and human rights threatens to undo decades of progress, challenging the very essence of Argentina’s democratic sphere.

The international community, particularly organizations dedicated to the promotion of human rights and the preservation of historical memory, such as UNESCO, must heed this call to action.

The situation in Argentina requires a collective effort to support its civil society, advocate for the protection of civic space, and ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.

This article was written by the Entidades no Gubernamentales para el Desarrollo (EENGD) – Red Encuentro, the national NGO platform of Argentina, in collaboration with the global civil society network Forus.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Violent Deaths by “Small Arms & Light Weapons”: UN Chief’s Warning Dead on Target

Posted on by admin

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

Empty large calibre bullet casings on the floor of a heavy machine gun position of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) at Kismayo International Airport in southern Somalia. Credit: UN Photo/Ramadaan Mohamed

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 24 2024 (IPS) – Perhaps two of the biggest misnomers in military jargon are “small arms” and “light weapons” which are the primary weapons of death and destruction in ongoing civil wars and military conflicts, mostly in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

In a statement last week, at the opening session of the Fourth Review Conference of the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was dead on target when he said there is nothing “small” or “ight” about the damage these weapons cause.

“Small arms and light weapons play a major role in these conflicts. Small arms are the leading cause of violent deaths globally, and are the weapon of choice in nearly half of all global homicides,” Guterres said.

The UN Programme of Action (UNPoA) on small arms and light weapons has an ambitious goal – to “prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.” But it’s a tough assignment in a political world dominated by the gun lobby and the military-industrial complex.

During the weeklong meeting, scheduled to conclude June 28, diplomats from around the world will review its implementation — against the backdrop of a political agreement that originated back in 2001. Members of civil society are also on hand to present their analyses and lobby and inform governments.

Speaking on behalf of Guterres, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu told delegates global military expenditures are on the rise.

And countries, regions and communities across the globe are suffering. New and protracted conflicts are placing millions of people in the line of fire.

“They aggravate crime, displacement and terrorism. From conflict zones to homes, they are used to threaten and perpetrate sexual and gender-based violence”.

According to the UN, “light weapons,” are primarily, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person.

They include, heavy machine guns, handheld under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of antitank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a calibre of less than 100 millimetres.

The current civil wars, where the choice of weapons is largely small arms and light weapons, are primarily in Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen—besides the two ongoing major wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

But in these two devastating conflicts, the Russians and Israelis are using more sophisticated weapons, including fighter aircraft, combat helicopters, drones, air-to-surface missiles, armoured personnel carriers and battle tanks, among others.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, who represents the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy in her work at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues, told IPS there are many obstacles to the full implementation of the UNPoA, both during the Review Conference and beyond. Two sets of these obstacles seem particularly noticeable at this year’s Review Conference.

The first set of obstacles is external.

In the end, the UNPoA is a political document, designed to be implemented primarily at the national level. States must have the political will to carry out the commitments in the UNPoA and the outcome documents of the various biennial meetings of states and review conferences, she said.

Smaller, less well-resourced States may also need financial assistance to be able to implement some portions of the UNPoA.

As a result, some smaller States are unwilling to accept programs and policies they fear will cost them money to implement, even with the potential availability of international assistance, Dr Goldring pointed out.

“The political challenge is complicated by the major roles played by the arms industry. Weapons manufacturers have financial incentives to sell as many weapons as they can. And States that supply weapons can be dependent on the power of those manufacturers. Some of these manufacturers are so intent on protecting their profits that they even attend, speak, and lobby at these conferences”.

The second key obstacle, she said, is internal.

“The Programme of Action process generally runs on a practice of “consensus”. In theory, that sounds laudable – why wouldn’t we want the process to be dominated by reaching consensus? But in this process, consensus is effectively defined as unanimity. That means that a single negative voice can block change – or progress”.

Because of the consensus process, she argued, these conferences and meetings often face an uncomfortable choice between two main options. One possibility is a strong outcome document, reached through votes, but lacking consensus. Another possibility is a weaker outcome document, reached through consensus.

“If it seems as though consensus is not going to be possible, then the supporters of the UNPoA could – and arguably should – construct an ambitious outcome document that would better fulfill the promise of the UNPoA and would require votes on some of the most controversial paragraphs. Arguably, the worst outcome would be for the proponents of a robust UNPoA to accept a lot of compromises on the text and still not reach consensus,” declared Dr Goldring

Guterres said small arms and light weapons aggravate crime, displacement and terrorism. From conflict zones to homes, they are used to threaten and perpetrate sexual and gender-based violence.

They block vital humanitarian aid from reaching the most vulnerable. They put the lives of United Nations peacekeeping forces and civilian personnel at risk.

And the situation is growing worse, as new developments in the manufacturing, technology and design of small arms — such as 3D printing — make their illegal production and trafficking easier than ever before, warned Guterres.

Rebecca Peters, Director, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), said in an oped piece in the UN Chronicle, that a thousand people die each day from gunshot wounds, and three times as many are left with severe injuries. If the death, injury and disability resulting from small arms were categorized as a disease, it would qualify as an epidemic.

Yet the media and popular perception tend to suggest that gun violence is simply an unavoidable consequence of human cruelty or deprivation, rather than a public health problem which can be prevented or at least reduced, she said.

“The circumstances of gun violence vary so enormously, it would be simplistic to suggest a single solution. A comprehensive approach, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the problem, is needed to bring down the grim toll of global death and injury.”

Nonetheless, the high school massacres in the US, the armed gangs in Brazil or the systematic sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo all share a common denominator: the availability of guns (or small arms, as they are known in UN circles).

She said practical steps toward reducing the availability and misuse of small arms can be classified under four headings:

    1. Reducing the existing stockpile
    2. Reducing the supply of new weapons
    3. Closing the gates between the legal and illegal markets
    4. Reducing the motivation for acquiring guns (demand)

Elaborating further, Dr Goldring said the issue of whether or how to include ammunition in the UNPoA is a key example of the difficulty of reaching consensus. This has been the case since the initial negotiation of the UNPoA, when the United States and a few others States showed their willingness to block consensus over this issue. That fight continues at this meeting.

The President of the Review Conference, she said, is a remarkably able diplomat from Costa Rica, Permanent Representative Maritza Chan Valverde. If anyone can thread the needle on having a strong outcome document and reaching consensus at the same time, it’s likely to be Ambassador Chan. But it’s a herculean task.

“I greatly admire her skill and dedication, but I think that the chasm between the supporters of the UNPoA and the obstructionists may simply be too large.”

In discussing the outcome document of the September 2024 Summit of the Future, Ambassador Chan said, “The Pact for the Future cannot remain anchored in the language of the past. Consensus must be forged, not found. Ambition must prevail in the text, and the progress of the many cannot be hindered by the reservations of the few.”

That quote, Dr Goldring said, seems to suggest that she would be willing to have votes in order to avoid having the document be undermined by the obstructionists. But only time will tell.

In the early- to the mid-90s, the international trade in small arms and light weapons was a specialist topic within an extremely small community internationally, and was not on the international policy agenda in a significant way.

Because of the work of analysts and advocates to bring attention to this issue, subsequently accompanied by the work of dedicated diplomats at the UN and elsewhere, it is now an established part of international work to reduce the human costs of armed violence.

“Unfortunately, quantitative measures of the UNPoA’s effectiveness are difficult – if not impossible — to develop. Instead, we often measure outputs and activities, rather than outcomes. We simply don’t know the counterfactual – what the situation would have been without the UNPoA,” she declared.

Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; and Military Editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source