25TH Anniversary Message to the UN: Prioritize the Culture of Peace in its Leadership Agenda

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

NEW YORK, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – This opinion piece is being published exactly on the date when twenty-five years ago today the UN took its most forward-looking stride in ensuring a peaceful planet for all of us since the signing of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945.

The UN Charter arose out of the ashes of the Second World War and the UN Declaration and the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace emerged in the aftermath of the long-drawn Cold War.

On this very day, the United Nations adopted by consensus and without reservation a monumental document on the Culture of Peace that transcends boundaries, cultures, societies, and nations.

Arduous journey

It was an honour for me to Chair the nine-month long open-ended negotiations that led to the agreement on that historic norm-setting document which is considered as one of the most significant legacies of the United Nations that would endure generations.

I introduced the agreed text of that document (A/RES/53/243) on behalf of all Member States for adoption by the Assembly with its President Didier Opertti of Uruguay chairing the meeting. Through this landmark adoption, the General Assembly laid down humanity’s charter for the new approaching millennium.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

This document explains, outlines, and defines everything that the international community has agreed on as the focus of the culture of peace. I would always treasure and cherish the opportunity to lead the process in its adoption and in its subsequent advocacy.

For me this has been a realization of my personal commitment to peace and my humble contribution to humanity. For more than two and a half decades, my focus has been on advancing the culture of peace and I have continued to devote considerable time, energy, and effort to do that.

It has been a long, arduous journey – a journey ridden curiously with both obstacles and indifference. Since July 1997, when I took the initiative to write to our much-loved and highly respected Secretary-General Kofi Annan to create a separate item of agenda of the General Assembly, the path and progress of the culture of peace at UN have been uneven to say the least. For being a part of this journey, I pay tribute to Bangladeshi diplomats who have been true co-travellers.

My life’s experience has taught me to value peace and equality as the essential components of our existence. They unleash the positive forces of good that are so needed for human progress. It is essential to remember that the culture of peace requires a change of our hearts, change of our mindset.

The objective of the culture of peace is the empowerment of people. We should not isolate peace as something separate. It is important to realize that the absence of peace takes away the opportunities that we need to better ourselves, to prepare ourselves, to empower ourselves to face the challenges of our lives, individually and collectively.

Transformation is the essence

The essence of the culture of peace is its message of self-transformation and its message of inclusiveness, of global solidarity, of the oneness of humanity. These elements—individual and global, individual to global—constitute the way forward for the culture of peace.

‘Transformation’ is of the most essential relevance here. The Programme of Action identifies eight specific areas which encourage actions at all levels – the individual, the family, the community, the national, the regional and, of course, the global levels.

Though the Declaration and Programme of Action is an agreement among nations, governments, civil society, media, and individuals are all identified in this document as key actors.

The culture of peace begins with each one of us – unless we are ready to integrate peace and non-violence as part of our daily existence, we cannot expect our communities, our nations, our planet to be peaceful. We should be prepared and confident in resolving the challenges of our lives in a non-aggressive manner. In today’s world, more so, the humanity’s creed should be based on inner oneness and outer diversity.

Enhancing Member States engagement

To accord an enhanced profile to the concept of the culture of peace, since 2012, successive UN General Assembly Presidents convened an annual UN High Level Forum on The Culture of Peace to provide an inclusive, participatory platform for UN Member States, civil society, media, private sector and other interested parties to exchange ideas on the implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action.

Since 2012, when the first UN High Level Forum was convened by the President of the 66th Session of the General Assembly Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser, the UNGA mandated this annual Forum as “an opportunity for renewing the commitments to strengthen further the global movement for the culture of peace.”

At the global level, the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP), a coalition of civil society organizations, have been spearheading advocacy initiatives effectively since 2011 as well as in organizing the annual High-Level Forums on The Culture of Peace convened by the President of UN General Assembly.

Peace and Culture of Peace

Many treat peace and culture of peace synonymously. When we speak of peace, we expect others namely politicians, diplomats, or other practitioners to take the initiative while when we speak of the culture of peace, we know that initial action begins with each one of us.

SDGs and the Culture of Peace

The UN General Assembly decided on the culture of peace before the Millennium Development Goals. SDGs came 15 years later. Many would recall that Goal 16 – the so-called peace goal – was almost dropped when the developing countries wanted to include a reference to the culture of peace.

A compromise excluded it so that the negotiated Goal 16 could be agreed without it. Bangladesh brought the reference to the culture of peace in Goal 4 in its target 4.7 which identified culture of peace and non-violence as well as global citizenship in educational context.

All eight areas of action in the culture of peace programme are reflected in various SDGs. I can however say with pride that the Culture of Peace would outlast the SDGs and make more deep-rooted and longer-lasting contribution to a sustainable and peaceful planet of ours when the UN observes the 30th anniversary of The Culture of Peace.

Let me end by outlining the three integrated mainstream for the coming years bolstering the global movement for the culture of peace.

Education for global citizenship

Number one: education. All educational institutions need to offer opportunities that prepare the students not only to live fulfilling lives but also to be responsible and productive citizens of the world. This should more appropriately be called “education for global citizenship”. If our minds could be likened to a computer, then education provides the software with which to “reboot” our priorities and actions for transition from force to reason, from conflict to dialogue.

Equality of women’s participation

Number two: women. As I always say emphatically –
“Without peace, development cannot be realized, without development, peace is not achievable, but without women, neither peace nor development is possible.”

Youth and children

And number three: youth and children. It is essential to recognize the empowerment of young people as a major element in building the culture of peace. Young people of today should embrace the culture of peace in a way that can not only shape their lives but can also shape the future of the world.

For this, I believe that early childhood affords a window of opportunity for us to sow the seeds of transition to the culture of peace from an early life.

Way forward

As former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nobel Peace laureate Kofi Annan had profoundly said, “Over the years we have come to realize that it is not enough to send peacekeeping forces to separate warring parties. It is not enough to engage in peace-building efforts after societies have been ravaged by conflict. It is not enough to conduct preventive diplomacy. All of this is essential work, but we want enduring results. We need, in short, the culture of peace.”

How do we build and promote the culture of peace? To turn the culture of peace into a global, universal movement, the most crucial element that is needed is for every one of us to be a true believer in peace and non-violence. A lot can be achieved in promoting the culture of peace through individual resolve and action.

By immersing ourselves in a culture that supports and promotes peace, individual efforts will–over time–combine and unite, and peace, security and sustainability will emerge. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.

The culture of peace is not a quick fix. It is a movement, not a revolution.

The seed of peace exists in all of us. It must be nurtured, cared for and promoted by us all to flourish. Peace cannot be imposed from outside – it must be realized from within.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, is Former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN; President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001); Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

The Deadly US Weapons of Civilian Destruction

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Much of the Gaza Strip has been destroyed in the conflict. Credit: UNRWA

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – As the devastating 11-month-old conflict in Gaza keeps escalating, with over 41,000 mostly civilian killings, and more than 92,000 Palestinians injured –in retaliation for the 1,200 killings inside Israel last October– the Israelis continue to defy the United States which maintains its uninterrupted flow of heavy weapons to Tel Aviv.

There are two hardcore lessons in this conflict. Perhaps Israel should realize that you cannot continue biting the hand that feeds you while the Biden administration should realize that you cannot continue to feed the mouth that bites you.

The world’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are categorized mostly as nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons. But the US-supplied missiles and 2,000-pound bombs dropped on Gaza are best described as weapons of civilian destruction (WCDs) which have also reduced cities to rubble.

On September 11, the New York Times ran a story on the latest killings of civilians, titled “Israel Kills Gazans as its Air Power Hits a Humanitarian Zone”

The Times quoted Trevor Ball, a former US army explosive ordnance-disposal technician, as identifying a fragment found at the most recent bombing in Gaza as “the tail section of a SPICE-2000 kit, a precision guided kit used with 2,000-pound bombs.

If Israel is accused of genocide and war crimes, where does the US fit in as the major supplier of arms that are killing all these civilians?

And, on August 13, as the civilian killings continued unabated, the Biden Administration formally notified Congress of its plan to authorize the sale of a staggering list of arms to Israel including:

An $18.8 billion sale of 50 F-15 fighter jets and related equipment;
A $774 million sale of up to 32,739 120mm tank cartridges and related equipment;
A $583 million sale of Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)s and related equipment;
A $102 million sale of 30 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and related equipment; and, A $61 million sale of 50,000 M933A1 120mm High Explosive mortar cartridges and related equipment.

In June 2024, Reuters reported that the Administration had transferred at least 14,000 MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, 6,500 500-pound bombs, 3,000 Hellfire precision-guided air-to-ground missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, 2,600 air-dropped small-diameter bombs, and other munitions.

Dr Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, told IPS “for Israel to commit its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, it requires a large and steady supply of weapons. Most of these weapons come from the United States.”

“In fact, over 11 months of Israeli genocide and following numerous reports by international organizations, we know precisely how US bunker busters and other weapons and munitions intended for mass killings have been used,” he pointed out.

Yet, despite all of this, the US continues to give Israel all the bombs and rockets necessary to inflict most deadly violence against Palestinians, including those sheltered in displacement camps, at UN schools, at hospitals, and other areas that are intended to be ‘safe zones’.

But American support for Israel cannot be confined to that of weapon supplies, Dr Baroud said, because Washington remains Israel’s strongest backer and defender at international institutions, including the UN Security Council. This blind and unconditional support has emboldened Israel to carry on with the most despicable genocide against an innocent and besieged nation.

Even Biden’s so-called ‘ceasefire proposal’ last May was supposedly communicated on behalf of Israel, then, oddly rejected also on behalf of Israel.

There can be no other interpretation of this: the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza is carried out jointly by Israel and the United States, said Dr Baroud, a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). www.ramzybaroud.net

According to a Cable News Network (CNN) report early this week US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has called for “fundamental changes” to the way Israeli forces operate in the occupied West Bank after the killing of American activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi at a protest last week.

US President Joe Biden condemned Eygi’s killing on Wednesday. ““I am outraged and deeply saddened by the death of Aysenur Eygi,” Biden said in a statement, adding that the shooting “is totally unacceptable.”

Biden called for “full accountability” for her death after Israel “has acknowledged its responsibility.” Israel, he added, “must do more to ensure that incidents like this never happen again.”

As an old Middle East saying goes: The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.

Is this a reflection of the unrestrained power of the Israeli lobby in the US Congress, which one-time Republican US presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, called “Israeli-occupied territory”? Does this now include the White House?

Unfortunately, there will be no accountability for the killing of the American-Turkish activist, Dr Baroud pointed out. “We know this for a fact because there has never been a precedent in history in which the US has held Israel accountable for anything”.

The family of American activist Rachel Corrie, who was deliberately run over by an Israeli army bulldozer, knows exactly how frivolous the US use of language in this kind of situation can be.

The US speaks of “accountability”, “responsibility”, “full investigations”, yet ultimately accepts the Israeli narrative as the truth. More recently, the US has used similar language following the murder of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, before circling back to accepting the Israeli story that her killing was not deliberate and was not part of a larger policy to target civilians.

Infuriatingly, but still unsurprisingly, the US is using the above language at a time when over 41,000 Palestinians have been confirmed killed in Gaza, with thousands more missing and tens of thousands wounded, he said.

Not only no such accountability has been achieved or even called for, but the US continues to give Israel the very murder weapon so that it may continue its genocide against Palestinian civilians, said Dr Baroud.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the death of at least 18 people, including children, women, and six UNRWA staff, in Israeli airstrikes that hit a school serving as a shelter in Nuseirat on 11 September.

This incident raises the number of UNRWA staff killed in this conflict to 220. The IDF stated that they had targeted a command-and-control center in the compound. This incident must be independently and thoroughly investigated to ensure accountability.

The continued lack of effective protection for civilians in Gaza is unconscionable. Civilians and the infrastructure they rely on must be protected and the essential needs of civilians met. The Secretary-General calls upon all parties to refrain from using schools, shelters, or the areas around them for military purposes. All parties to the conflict have the obligation to comply with international humanitarian law at all times.

The Secretary-General also reiterated his call for an immediate ceasefire and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. This horrific violence must stop, he declared.

According to an October 2023 report from the US State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, steadfast support for Israel’s security has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for every U.S. Administration since the presidency of Harry S. Truman.

Since its founding in 1948, the United States has provided Israel with over $130 billion in bilateral assistance focused on addressing new and complex security threats, bridging Israel’s capability gaps through security assistance and cooperation, increasing interoperability through joint exercises, and helping Israel maintain its Qualitative Military Edge (QME).

This assistance has helped transform the Israel Defense Forces into “one of the world’s most capable, effective militaries and turned the Israeli military industry and technology sector into one of the largest exporters of military capabilities worldwide”.

Israel has also been designated as a U.S. Major Non-NATO Ally under U.S. law. This status provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation and is a powerful symbol of their close relationship with the United States.

Thalif Deen, Senior Editor, UN Bureau, Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group, USA; and one-time UN correspondent for Jane’s Defense Weekly, London.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

A UN 2.0 Needs Robust People’s Civil Society Participation

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Conferences, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: United Nations

NEW YORK, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – A cascade of crises endangers our world. Wars conducted without rules, governance devoid of democratic principles, surge in discrimination against women and excluded groups, accelerating climate change, greed-induced environmental degradation and unconscionable economic deprivation in an age of excess are threatening to roll back decades of human progress made by the international community.

This September’s UN Summit of the Future presents a rare opportunity to address these challenges through greater participation in UN decision making. World leaders are convening later this month in New York to agree a Pact for the Future, expected to lay the blueprint for international cooperation in the 21st century.

But civil society’s efforts to ensure an outcome document fit for today’s needs are coming up against diplomatic posturing between powerful states intent on preserving the status quo.

State-centric decisions

The world has changed dramatically since the UN was established in 1945, when a large swathe of humanity was still under colonial yoke. Since then, significant strides have been made to advance democratic governance around the world. Yet decision-making processes at the UN remain stubbornly state-centric, privileging a handful of powerful states that control decisions and key appointments.

Civil society has presented the Pact of the Future’s co-facilitators, the governments of Germany and Namibia, with several innovative proposals to enable meaningful participation and people-centred decision-making at the UN. Proposals include a parliamentary assembly representative of the world’s peoples, a world citizen’s initiative to enable people to bring issues of transnational importance to the UN and the appointment of a civil society or people’s envoy to drive the UN’s outreach to communities around the world. However, these forward-looking proposals have found no traction in various drafts of the Pact, which is being criticised for lacking ambition and specificity.

It’s no surprise that diplomatic negotiations on the Pact between country representatives are being bogged down by arguments over language. As a result of diplomatic wrangling, the draft’s provisions are mostly generic and repetitive.

This is unfortunate, as civil society representatives have spent considerable time and energy over the course of the past year in engaging with Summit of the Future processes. Despite tight deadlines, civil society organisations came together at short notice to submit comprehensive recommendations on the Pact’s successive drafts. Hundreds of civil society delegates participated at considerable expense in the much-anticipated Civil Society Conference in Nairobi, designed to gather inputs to feed into the Summit outcomes.

Overall, the gains made so far have been few. These include broad commitments to reform the UN Security Council and international financial institutions. A significantly positive aspect of the Pact’s draft is a commitment to strengthen the UN’s human rights pillar; many of us in civil society rely on this to raise concerns about egregious violations. However, deep-seated tensions among member states in New York have led to the regrettable removal of references to human rights defenders, who play a crucial role in protecting and promoting human rights. This is evident in the recent Revision 3 draft of the Pact released on 27 August.

Strengthening human rights

Tellingly, the human rights pillar receives roughly five per cent of the UN’s regular budget, forcing any new initiatives to rely on underfunded voluntary contributions. This needs to change. The human rights pillar needs to be strengthened. Doing so would help make each of the three UN’s pillars – the others being peace and security and sustainable development – more strongly connected and mutually reinforcing.

To strengthen the human rights pillar, we outline five priority areas for action.

First, substantial resources should be allocated to the UN’s independent thematic and country-focused human rights experts, who enhance civil society’s impact but are forced to get by on shoestring budgets. Due to limited funding from the UN, the experts are compelled to rely on voluntary contributions to support their vital activities.

Second, an accessible and transparently managed pooled fund should be created to enable better participation by civil society in UN meetings. Many smaller civil society organisations, particularly from the global south, find it extremely challenging to cover the costs of participation in key UN arenas.

Third, accountability measures should be strengthened to ensure follow-up in cases of reprisals against people for engaging with UN human rights mechanisms. The UN’s latest reprisals report shows that reprisals have taken place against over 150 individuals in more than 30 states. This needs to be addressed immediately.

Fourth, the UN’s investigative capacities in relation to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide should be strengthened to ensure justice for victims. The need for this has been made tragically clear by the resurgence of authoritarian rule and military dictatorships around the world, coupled with egregious rights violations in conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen and others.

Finally, the human rights pillar can be supported by ensuring implementation of the UN’s guidance note on civic space. This urges the protection of civil society personnel and human rights defenders from intimidation and reprisals, the facilitation of meaningful and safe participation in governance processes and the promotion of laws and policies to support these goals.

The role human rights defenders and civil society activists play in ensuring peaceful resolution of conflicts, addressing gender-based violence and promoting economic justice – among many other vital issues – is crucial. In calling to strengthen the human rights pillar, the Pact’s pen holders recognise the importance of human rights approaches. They must extend this recognition to include people’s and civil society participation. Failing to do so will result in a missed opportunity to create a transformative UN 2.0 that places people and rights at the centre.

Jesselina Rana is UN advisor at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. Mandeep Tiwana is chief of evidence and engagement at CIVICUS plus representative to the UN in New York.

 

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

Knowledge is Power. Gaza War Supporters Don’t Want Students to Have Both

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Student protesters at Columbia University, New York. Credit: IPS

SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Sep 6 2024 (IPS) – With nearly 18 million students on U.S. college campuses this fall, defenders of the war on Gaza don’t want to hear any backtalk. Silence is complicity, and that’s the way Israel’s allies like it.

For them, the new academic term restarts a threat to the status quo. But for supporters of human rights, it’s a renewed opportunity to turn higher education into something more than a comfort zone.

In the United States, the extent and arrogance of the emerging collegiate repression is, quite literally, breathtaking. Every day, people are dying due to their transgression of breathing while Palestinian.

The Gaza death toll adds up to more than one Kristallnacht per day — for upwards of 333 days and counting, with no end in sight. The shattering of a society’s entire infrastructure has been horrendous.

Months ago, citing data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, ABC News reported that “25,000 buildings have been destroyed, 32 hospitals forced out of service, and three churches, 341 mosques and 100 universities and schools destroyed.”

Not that this should disturb the tranquility of campuses in the country whose taxpayers and elected leaders make it all possible. Top college officials wax eloquent about the sanctity of higher learning and academic freedom while they suppress protests against policies that have destroyed scores of universities in Palestine.

A key rationale for quashing dissent is that anti-Israel protests make some Jewish students uncomfortable. But the purposes of college education shouldn’t include always making people feel comfortable. How comfortable should students be in a nation enabling mass murder in Gaza?

What would we say about claims that students in the North with southern accents should not have been made uncomfortable by on-campus civil rights protests and denunciations of Jim Crow in the 1950s and 1960s? Or white students from South Africa, studying in the United States, made uncomfortable by anti-apartheid protests in the 1980s?

A bedrock for the edifice of speech suppression and virtual thought-policing is the old standby of equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Likewise, the ideology of Zionism that tries to justify Israeli policies is supposed to get a pass no matter what — while opponents, including many Jews, are liable to be denounced as antisemites.

But polling shows that more younger Americans are supportive of Palestinians than they are of Israelis. The ongoing atrocities by the Israel “Defense” Forces in Gaza, killing a daily average of more than 100 people — mostly children and women — have galvanized many young people to take action in the United States.

“Protests rocked American campuses toward the end of the last academic year,” a front-page New York Times story reported in late August, adding: “Many administrators remain shaken by the closing weeks of the spring semester, when encampments, building occupations and clashes with the police helped lead to thousands of arrests across the country.” (Overall, the phrase “clashes with the police” served as a euphemism for police violently attacking nonviolent protesters.)

From the hazy ivory towers and corporate suites inhabited by so many college presidents and boards of trustees, Palestinian people are scarcely more than abstractions compared to far more real priorities. An understated sentence from the Times sheds a bit of light: “The strategies that are coming into public view suggest that some administrators at schools large and small have concluded that permissiveness is perilous, and that a harder line may be the best option — or perhaps just the one least likely to invite blowback from elected officials and donors who have demanded that universities take stronger action against protesters.”

Much more clarity is available from a new Mondoweiss article by activist Carrie Zaremba, a researcher with training in anthropology. “University administrators across the United States have declared an indefinite state of emergency on college campuses,” she wrote. “Schools are rolling out policies in preparation for quashing pro-Palestine student activism this fall semester, and reshaping regulations and even campuses in the process to suit this new normal.

“Many of these policies being instituted share a common formula: more militarization, more law enforcement, more criminalization, and more consolidation of institutional power. But where do these policies originate and why are they so similar across all campuses? The answer lies in the fact that they have been provided by the ‘risk and crisis management’ consulting industries, with the tacit support of trustees, Zionist advocacy groups, and federal agencies. Together, they deploy the language of safety to disguise a deeper logic of control and securitization.”

Countering such top-down moves will require intensive grassroots organizing. Sustained pushback against campus repression will be essential, to continually assert the right to speak out and protest as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Insistence on acquiring knowledge while gaining power for progressive forces will be vital. That’s why the national Teach-In Network was launched this week by the RootsAction Education Fund (which I help lead), under the banner “Knowledge Is Power — and Our Grassroots Movements Need Both.”

The elites that were appalled by the moral uprising on college campuses against Israel’s slaughter in Gaza are now doing all they can to prevent a resurgence of that uprising. But the mass murder continues, subsidized by the U.S. government. When students insist that true knowledge and ethical action need each other, they can help make history and not just study it.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in paperback this month with a new afterword about the Gaza war.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Nicaragua, China, India among 55 Nations Restricting Freedom of Movement

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Latin America & the Caribbean, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Freedom House

WASHINGTON, Aug 27 2024 (IPS) – At least 55 governments in the past decade have restricted the freedom of movement for people they deem as threats, including journalists, according to a Freedom House report published last Thursday.

Governments control freedom of movement via travel bans, revoking citizenship, document control and denial of consular services, the report found. All the tactics are designed to coerce and punish government critics, according to Jessica White, the report’s London-based co-author.

“This is a type of tactic that really shows the vindictive and punitive nature of some countries,” White said. This form of repression “is an attempt to really stifle peoples’ ability to speak out freely from wherever they are.”

Belarus, China, India, Nicaragua, Russia, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia are among the countries that engage in this form of repression, the report found. Freedom House based its findings in part on interviews with more than 30 people affected by mobility controls.

Travel bans are the most common tactic, according to White, with Freedom House identifying at least 40 governments who prevent citizens leaving or returning to the country.

Revoking citizenship is another strategy, despite being prohibited by international law. The Nicaraguan government in 2023 stripped more than 200 political prisoners of their citizenship shortly after deporting them to the United States.

Among them were Juan Lorenzo Holmann, head of Nicaragua’s oldest newspaper, La Prensa. “It is as if I do not exist anymore. It is another attack on my human rights,” he told VOA after being freed. “But you cannot do away with the person’s personality. In the Nicaraguan constitution, it says that you cannot wipe out a person’s personal records or take away their nationality. I feel Nicaraguan, and they cannot take that away from me.”

Before being expelled from his own country, Lorenzo had spent 545 days in prison, in what was widely viewed as a politically motivated case.

Blocking access to passports and other travel documents is another tactic. In one example, Hong Kong in June canceled the passports of six pro-democracy activists who were living in exile in Britain.

In some cases, governments refuse to issue people passports to trap them in the country. And in cases where the individual is already abroad, embassies deny passport renewals to block the individual from traveling anywhere, including back home.

Myanmar’s embassy in Berlin, for instance, has refused to renew the passport of Ma Thida, a Burmese writer in exile in Germany. Ma Thida told VOA earlier this year she believes the refusal is in retaliation for her writing.

White said Ma Thida’s case was a classic example of mobility restrictions. For now, the German government has issued a passport reserved for people who are unable to obtain a passport from their home country — which White applauded but said is still rare.

“Our ability to freely leave and return to our home country is something that in democratic societies, people often take for granted. It’s one of our fundamental human rights, but it’s one that is being undermined and violated across many parts of the world,” White said.

Mobility restrictions can have devastating consequences, including making it difficult to work, travel and visit family. What makes matters even worse is the emotional toll, according to White.

“There is a huge psychological impact,” White said. “A lot of our interviewees mention especially the pain of being separated from family members and not being able to return to their country.”

In the report, Freedom House called on democratic governments to impose sanctions on actors that engage in mobility controls.

White said that democratic governments should do more to help dissidents, including by providing them with alternative travel documents if they can’t obtain them from their home countries.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/FIW_2024_DigitalBooklet.pdf

Source: Voice of America (VOA)

IPS UN Bureau

  Source