79 Years After Hiroshima & Nagasaki: A Grim Reminder of Nuclear Annihilation

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Energy – Nuclear Weapons, TerraViva United Nations

Nuclear Disarmament

Erico Platt looks at the disarmament exhibition that she staged, “Three Quarters of a Century After Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Hibakusha—Brave Survivors Working for a Nuclear-Free World.” Credit: UNODA/Diane Barnes

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 1 2024 (IPS) – The upcoming 79th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place on August 6 and 9, 1945, remains a grim reminder of the destructive consequences of nuclear weapons.

The US bombings killed an estimated 90,000 to 210,000, with roughly half of the deaths occurring on the first day in Hiroshima.

But despite an intense global campaign for nuclear disarmament, the world has witnessed an increase in the number of nuclear powers from five—the US, UK, France, China and Russia—to nine, including India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

Is the continued worldwide anti-nuclear campaign an exercise in futility? And will the rising trend continue—with countries such as Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Korea—as potential nuclear powers of the future?

South Africa is the only country that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons after developing them. In the 1980s, South Africa produced six nuclear weapons, but dismantled them between 1989 and 1993. A number of factors may have influenced South Africa’s decision, including national security, international relations, and a desire to avoid becoming a pariah state.

But there is an equally valid argument that there have been no nuclear wars—only threats—largely because of the success of the world-wide anti-nuclear campaign, the role of the United Nations and the collective action by most of the 193 member states in adopting several anti-nuclear treaties.

According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the United Nations has sought to eliminate weapons  of mass destruction (WMDs) ever since the establishment of the world body. The first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946 established a commission to deal with problems related to the discovery of atomic energy, among others.

The commission was to make proposals for, inter alia, the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes.

Several multilateral treaties have since been established with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation and testing, while promoting progress in nuclear disarmament.

These include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, also known as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was signed in 1996 but has yet to enter into force, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California, which monitors and analyzes US nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS: “As we approach the 79th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world is facing a greater danger of nuclear war than at any time since 1945.”

“The terrifying doctrine of “nuclear deterrence,” which should long ago have been delegitimized and relegated to the dustbin of history and replaced with multilateral, non-militarized common security, has metastasized into a pathological ideology brandished by nuclear-armed states and their allies to justify the perpetual possession and threatened use—including first use—of nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.

“It is more important than ever that we heed the warnings of the aging hibakusha (A-bomb survivors): What happened to us must never be allowed to happen to anyone again; nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist; no more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis!”

This demands an irreversible process of nuclear disarmament. But to the contrary, all nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals and a new multipolar arms race is underway, she noted.

“To achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons and a global society that is more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable, we will need to move from the irrational fear-based ideology of deterrence to the rational fear of an eventual nuclear weapon use, whether by accident, miscalculation, or design.”

“We will also need to stimulate a rational hope that security can be redefined in humanitarian and ecologically sustainable terms that will lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons and dramatic demilitarization, freeing up tremendous resources desperately needed to address universal human needs and protect the environment.”

In this time of multiple global crises, “our work for the elimination of nuclear weapons must take place in a much broader framework, taking into account the interface between nuclear and conventional weapons and militarism in general, the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy, the rule of law, and human wellbeing,” declared Cabasso.

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS, “The glass is half-full or half-empty depending on how one looks at it.”

“The fact that we have avoided nuclear war since 1945 is also partly due to the persistence of the anti-nuclear movement. Historians like Lawrence Wittner have pointed to the many instances when governments have chosen nuclear restraint instead of unrestrained expansion.”

While South Africa is the only country that dismantled its entire nuclear weapons program, many countries—Sweden, for example—have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons even though they had the technical capacity to do so. They did so in part because of strong public opposition to nuclear weapons, which in turn is due to social movements supporting nuclear disarmament, he pointed out.

Thus, organizing for nuclear disarmament is not futile. Especially as we move into another era of conflicts between major powers, such movements will be critical to our survival, declared Ramana.

According to the UN, a group of elderly hibakusha, called Nihon Hidankyo, have dedicated their lives to achieving a non-proliferation treaty, which they hope will ultimately lead to a total ban on nuclear weapons.

“On an overcrowded train on the Hakushima line, I fainted for a while, holding in my arms my eldest daughter of one year and six months. I regained my senses at her cries and found no one else was on the train,” a 34-year-old woman testifies in the booklet. She was located just two kilometres from the Hiroshima epicenter.

Fleeing to her relatives in Hesaka, at age 24, another woman remembers that “people, with the skin dangling down, were stumbling along. They fell down with a thud and died one after another,” adding, “still now I often have nightmares about this, and people say, ‘it’s neurosis’.”

One man who entered Hiroshima after the bomb recalled in the exhibition “that dreadful scene—I cannot forget even after many decades.”

At a disarmament exhibition in UN Headquarters in New York, a visitor reads text about a young boy bringing his little brother to a cremation site in Nagasaki, Japan. Credit: UNODA/Erico Platt

At a disarmament exhibition in UN Headquarters in New York, a visitor reads text about a young boy bringing his little brother to a cremation site in Nagasaki, Japan. Credit: UNODA/Erico Platt

A woman who was 25 years old at the time said, “When I went outside, it was dark as night. Then it got brighter and brighter, and I could see burnt people crying and running about in utter confusion. It was hell…I found my neighbor trapped under a fallen concrete wall… Only half of his face was showing. He was burned alive”.

The steadfast conviction of the Hidankyo remains: “Nuclear weapons are absolute evil that cannot coexist with humans. There is no choice but to abolish them.”

Addressing the UN Security Council last March, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that with geopolitical tensions escalating the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades, reducing and abolishing nuclear weapons is the only viable path to saving humanity.

“There is one path—and one path only—that will vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow once and for all.  We need disarmament now,” he said, urging nuclear-weapon States to re-engage to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon, re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing and “urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons.”

He called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons led by the holders of the largest arsenals—the United States and the Russian Federation—to “find a way back to the negotiating table” to fully implement the New Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or START Treaty, and agree on its successor.

“When each country pursues its own security without regard for others, we create global insecurity that threatens us all,” he observed.  Almost eight decades after the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons still represent a clear danger to global peace and security, growing in power, range and stealth.”

“States possessing them are absent from the negotiating table, and some statements have raised the prospect of unleashing nuclear hell—threats that we must all denounce with clarity and force,” he said.  Moreover, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and cyber and outer space domains have created new risks.”

From Pope Francis, who calls the possession of nuclear arms “immoral”, to the hibakusha, the brave survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Hollywood, where Oppenheimer brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world, people are calling for an end to the nuclear madness.  “Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer,” he warned.

When Nagasaki marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city last year, the mayor Shiro Suzuki, urged world powers to abolish nuclear weapons, saying nuclear deterrence also increases risks of nuclear war, according to an Associated Press (AP) report.

He called on the Group of Seven (G7) industrial powers to adopt a separate document on nuclear disarmament that called for using nuclear weapons as deterrence.

“Now is the time to show courage and make the decision to break free from dependence on nuclear deterrence,” Suzuki said in his peace declaration. “As long as states are dependent on nuclear deterrence, we cannot realize a world without nuclear weapons.”

Russia’s nuclear threat has encouraged other nuclear states to accelerate their dependence on nuclear weapons or enhance capabilities, further increasing the risk of nuclear war, and that Russia is not the only one representing the risk of nuclear deterrence, Suzuki said.

Suzuki, whose parents were hibakusha, or survivors of the Nagasaki attack, said knowing the reality of the atomic bombings is the starting point for achieving a world without nuclear weapons. He said the survivors’ testimonies are a true deterrent against nuclear weapons use, the AP report said.

This article is brought to you by IPS Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Sportwashing Allegations at Africa’s Top Football Tournament

Posted on by admin

Africa, Climate Action, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Energy, Environment, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Green Economy, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Climate Change

Opponents of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline protested American International Group's continued support of the project. The protest was in New York in July. Credit: 350.org

Opponents of the East African Crude Oil pipeline protested American International Group’s continued support of the project. The protest was in New York in July. Credit: 350.org

ABUJA, Jul 30 2024 (IPS) – Following the recent Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) tournament in Ivory Coast, a continent-wide campaign has emerged on social media challenging the tournament’s main sponsor, TotalEnergies, over its involvement in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

EACOP, a massive 1,443-kilometer crude oil export pipeline, is designed to transport oil from Western Uganda’s oilfields to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. TotalEnergies, a major stakeholder in the project, will extract oil from the Tilenga field and export it to the Global North.

Environmentalists argue that the project threatens the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people and the region’s fragile ecosystems. The Ugandan and Tanzanian governments have dismissed these concerns, asserting that the pipeline is essential for bolstering their economies.

Many of these campaigners, particularly environmentalists, have faced harassment and arrest.

One of them, Stephen Kwikiriza, an employee of Uganda’s Environment Governance Institute (EGI), a non-profit organization, was reportedly abducted and beaten by the Ugandan armed forces in Kampala on June 4, 2024.

After being questioned, he was abandoned hundreds of miles from the capital, highlighting the latest episode in the crackdown on environmentalists in Uganda.

TotalEnergies, through their press officer, François Sinecan, emphatically denied that the company had anything to do with the harassment of environmentalists, or was involved in legitimizing the company through sponsorship.

Sportswashing

Critics argue that TotalEnergies is exploiting Uganda and Tanzania for their oil, even as it faces numerous legal battles due to its role in the climate crisis and refusal to take responsibility.

They worry that TotalEnergies is using AFCON, the continent’s biggest football tournament, and its global viewership to enhance its image while profiting from climate-wrecking fossil fuel extraction across Africa.

“AFCON is one of the ways they [TotalEnergies] are using to legitimize their existence. They have to use the sports arena. They seem to say, ‘Look at what we are doing in Africa, and in your communities, it is to your benefit.’ Every time you look at the logo of TotalEnergies, you might be convinced that this is a big corporation that should invest [in Africa], when in actuality, they are destroying our existence,” Nkurunziza Alphonse, the Ugandan Coordinator of the Students Against EACOP Uganda, told IPS.

Alphonse was arrested in October 2022 when he led a group of students to the EU embassy in Kampala to deliver a petition against EACOP. But he is not the only student to be arrested and harassed in recent times.

On December 15 last year, Bwete Abdul Aziiz, a co-founder of the Justice Movement Uganda and a student at Kyambogo University in Kampala, rallied 50 students, including members of the movement, to protest and deliver a petition to the Ugandan parliament against the EACOP.

However, the students did not reach their destination as the police dispersed the protest and arrested Abdul Aziiz, along with three other students who are members of the movement.

“Before we were taken to the Central Police Station in Kampala, where we spent four days, we were held in an enclosed space for about an hour where the police threatened us to stop fighting the government. I was kicked in the ribs by a police officer, and other colleagues were slapped,” Abdul Aziiz told IPS.

However, Sinecan, TotalEnergies press officer, denied claims of sportwashing and involvement in the arrests of climate activists.

“Africa is part of the DNA of TotalEnergies, which has been present on the continent for ninety years and has never ceased to develop its activities and strengthen its local roots. The company employs 10,000 men and women in more than 40 African countries, working across the entire energy production and distribution chain. Every day, nearly 4 million customers visit the 4,700 service stations in the TotalEnergies network in Africa,” Sinecan told IPS.

He added that TotalEnergies  “will not tolerate any threat or attack against those who peacefully defend and promote human rights.”

“TotalEnergies has a history of engaging directly with all members of civil society, including NGOs involved in human rights issues. To this end, the company’s commitments include quarterly meetings, stakeholder dialogue, bilateral meetings, webinars on keynote topics identified by NGOs and responses to questions and concerns raised by all project stakeholders,” said Sinecan.

However, activists that IPS spoke to do not agree.

Bhekhumuzi Bhebhe, Campaigns Lead at Power Shift Africa, in a statement sent to IPS said, “Investing millions in sportswashing while undercompensating displaced households exposes a profound deceit by the French multinational. It also highlights the glaring disconnect between corporate sponsorship and genuine social responsibility.”

But the French oil giant denied claims of undercompensating displaced households, telling IPS that “as with all other aspects of the project, TotalEnergies stringently complies with local regulations and international standards (IFC).”

Football and Climate Change

The 2023 AFCON was postponed to 2024 due to adverse weather conditions, leading critics to argue that the tournament underscored the impacts of the climate crisis, for which TotalEnergies and other oil majors are largely responsible.

Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Project has described EACOP as a mid-sized carbon bomb. The pipeline is projected to become operational by 2025 and once completed, it is expected to contribute approximately 34 million tons of carbon emissions annually for around 25 years.

Baraka Lenga, Greenfaith Tanzania coordinator, considers this a climate disaster.

“For capitalists and businessmen, EACOP implies making billions of dollars. TotalEnergies does not care about human rights but about money. In Tanzania, over 70 percent of citizens depend on agriculture, yet instead of being concerned about the negative impacts of EACOP, TotalEnergies is focused on profit,” Lenga said.

Alagoa Morris, an environmental expert and human rights activist in Nigeria, told IPS that African governments allow oil giants to exploit communities in the continent to maintain support from the Global North, where the majority of these oil firms are based. He says this has also led to numerous oil spills in the continent.

Last year, the Nigerian government confirmed the loss of 3,000 barrels of crude oil in TotalEnergies’ spill in the oil-rich Niger-Delta region, which is already one of the most polluted areas on the planet due to frequent oil spills.

“African governments are complicit in the exploitation of the continent’s oil resources because the wealth generated from oil is then used to fuel the lust for power and wealth of a few individuals, perpetuating a cycle of corruption and environmental degradation,” Morris said.

Renewable Energies?

To do away with fossil fuels by mid-century, world leaders during cop28 held at UAE last year, pledged to keep investing in renewable energies. However, with a projected population of about 2.5 billion in 2050, many African leaders doubt that renewable energy can adequately substitute for energy obtained from fossil fuels required to produce power for a rapidly growing population in Africa.

Seyifunmi Adebote, an environmental policy expert in Nigeria, believes Africa must embrace renewable energy but according to him, “many countries on the continent lack the infrastructure to transition to renewable energy in the short run.”

Despite accusations of investing in fossil fuels, TotalEnergies told IPS that it has “dedicated USD 5 billion to renewable and low-carbon energies and will dedicate another USD 5 billion in 2024. This is the second year in a row that TotalEnergies has invested more in low-carbon energies than in new hydrocarbon projects.

“Since 2020, we have been resolutely committed to our transition strategy, which is based on two pillars: gas and electricity. Gas and low-carbon electricity are at the heart of tomorrow’s energy system. Gas is an essential transitional energy to support the rise of intermittent renewable energies and replace coal in power generation. In electricity, we are already one of the world’s biggest solar and wind power developers, which should put us in the top 5 worldwide in this sector by 2030.”

Victory In Sight

The fate of EACOP is uncertain after several financial institutions, including previous supporters of TotalEnergies, announced they would no longer back the project due to global environmental protests.

European lawmakers have also condemned and called for its delay.

For the Ugandan-based Alphonse, this marks a significant victory in the fight against EACOP, as the lack of financiers could lead to the project being suspended.

“This is the time African countries should move away from fossil fuels. Oil is destroying our continent,” he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report,

  Source

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

Posted on by admin

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

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

Renzo Pomi

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

How did the Summit of the Future come about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did you advocate should be including in the pact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Source

Paraguay: ‘Bureaucratic Criminalisation’, New Legislation Threatens NGOs and Democracy

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

March for rights in Asunción, capital of Paraguay. Credit Patricia López

ASUNCIÓN, Paraguay, Jul 29 2024 (IPS) – In a move that has aroused national and international concern, the Paraguayan Senate has given preliminary approval to a controversial bill that imposes strict controls on NGOs in a case of ‘bureaucratic criminalisation’.

The landscape has become increasingly hostile to the activities of civil society organisations, with several laws representing a rollback of historically defended fundamental rights.

‘Additional bureaucratic hurdles”: the effects of new legislation

Non-profit organisations in the country have to deal with a variety of formalities and ongoing procedures before various public bodies. The proposed legislation, promoted by the ruling Colorado Party, now introduces additional registrations for all NGOs and strict reporting requirements. Under the pretext of improving transparency and accountability, the legislation represents a significant threat to democracy and the operational freedom of civil society in Paraguay.

Controversial elements of the bill include a new mandatory registration with the Ministry of Economy and Finance – which would be the law’s implementing authority – for all organisations receiving public or private funds of national or international origin, detailed reporting of all activities, detailed semi-annual financial reports, and severe penalties for non-compliance, including heavy fines and the possibility of dissolution of NGOs. Critics argue that these ‘legal-political arrangements’ are disproportionate and serve more to intimidate and control NGOs than to promote real accountability.

March for rights in Asunción, capital of Paraguay. Credit Patricia López

What civil society says

The passage of this bill comes in a broader context of growing authoritarianism in Paraguay. Since the 2023 elections, there have been several concerns about the ruling party’s consolidation of power and its impact on democratic institutions. The media, opposition parties and civil society organisations have faced increasing pressures, raising fears of a regression to the authoritarian practices of the past.

Monica Centron, Executive Coordinator of the national NGO platform, POJOAJU, emphasises the broader implications of such legislation for democracy: ‘This law threatens the fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution. It undermines the role of civil society in holding government accountable and promoting social justice. NGOs promote transparency and accountability, we have legislation that obliges us to account for our actions such as the Civil Code, reports to Seprelad (Secretariat for the Prevention of Money or Asset Laundering), the Treasury Attorney’s Office, banks, the National Directorate of Tax Revenue, among others’.

Raúl Monte Domecq, from POJOAJU’s coordination team, highlighted the possible adverse effects for smaller NGOs: ‘The administrative burdens and the threat of severe sanctions could lead many smaller organisations to close down. This will have a devastating impact on the communities they serve, particularly the most vulnerable’.

‘It must be understood that we have adopted for our Republic a Social State of Law and as a form of government representative, participatory and pluralist democracy, as enshrined in the National Constitution. The paths of dialogue and consultation, and not the opposite, are necessary requirements for the strengthening of our still incipient process of democratisation,’ says Gladys Casaccia, also a member of the POJOAJU Coordination team.

A threat to democratic principles

The bill has faced strong opposition from various sectors, including religious leaders, civil society organisations and international human rights bodies.

Marta Hurtado, spokesperson for the UN Human Rights Office, said the bill would ‘impose substantial restrictions on NGO funding’ and ‘obstruct the exercise of freedoms of association and expression’.

Ana Piquer, Amnesty International’s Americas director, said that ‘this bill subjects civil society organisations to arbitrary and abusive state control, without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. It puts human rights defenders and the communities they serve at significant risk’.

Just a few days ago, several UN Special Rapporteurs have joined forces to communicate to the government of Paraguay their concern about the possible approval of the Draft Law on the Control of Non-Profit Organisations.

Cardinal Adalberto Martinez, has urged the Senate to delay the bill, which will be discussed in less than 2 weeks from now, and initiate a dialogue with the affected sectors. ‘This bill could have serious consequences for our representative, participatory and pluralistic democratic system,’ he warned, emphasising the need for inclusive discussions.

This legislative measure also follows a worrying trend observed in other countries where governments have introduced restrictive laws to curb the influence and operations of civil society. By limiting access to international funding and imposing strict oversight, these laws effectively weaken civil society’s ability to operate independently and advocate for human rights and democratic governance.

Call for action

In light of these developments, POJOAJU and other civil society organisations call for urgent action:

    • Postponement and dialogue: they urge the government to halt the legislative process and engage in meaningful consultations with civil society to review the draft law.
    • Protection of rights: They demand that any new regulatory framework respect constitutional rights and international human rights standards, ensuring that it promotes genuine transparency without undermining the independence of civil society.
    • International solidarity: Civil society and governments are also being urged to call for dialogue with the Paraguayan government to reconsider this draft law in law. The stakes are high, not only for Paraguay, but also for the precedent it could set in the region.

Mónica Centrón, POJOAJU, Isabella Camargo and Bibbi Abruzzini, Forus

This article is written by the Forus network in partnership with POJOAJU. For more on the “bureocratic criminalisation” of civil society, consult Abong’s report detailing the context in Brazil under Bolsanaro’s presidency here.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Government Indifferent to Invasion of Drug Traffickers in the Peruvian Amazon

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Editors’ Choice, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Sustainable Development Goals

Indigenous Rights

Members of the indigenous guard of the native community of Puerto Nuevo, of the Amazonian Kakataibo people, located in the central-eastern jungle of Peru. Credit: Courtesy of Marcelo Odicio

Members of the indigenous guard of the native community of Puerto Nuevo, of the Amazonian Kakataibo people, located in the central-eastern jungle of Peru. Credit: Courtesy of Marcelo Odicio

LIMA, Jul 26 2024 (IPS) – The invasion of lands inhabited by Amazon indigenous communities is growing in Peru, due to drug trafficking mafias that are expanding coca crops to produce and export cocaine, while deforestation and insecurity for the native populations and their advocates are increasing

“Drug trafficking is not a myth or something new in this area, and we are the ones who defend our right to live in peace in our land,” said Kakataibo indigenous leader Marcelo Odicio, from the municipality of Aguaytía, capital of the province of Padre Abad, in the Amazonian department of Ucayali.

“We are the ones who pay the consequences, we are visible to criminals, we are branded as informers, but I will continue to defend our rights. Along with the indigenous guard we will ensure that the autonomy of our territory is respected,” Marcelo Odicio.

Of the 33 million inhabitants of the South American country, around 800,000 belong to 51 Amazonian indigenous peoples. Overall, 96.4% of the indigenous population is Quechua and Aymara, six million of whom live in the Andean areas, while the Amazonian jungle peoples account for the remaining 3.6%.

The Peruvian government is constantly criticised for failing to meet the needs and demands of this population, who suffer multiple disadvantages in health, education, income generation and access to opportunities, as well as the growing impact of drug trafficking, illegal logging and mining.

A clear example of this is the situation of the Kakataibo people in two of their native communities, Puerto Nuevo and Sinchi Roca, in the border between the departments of Huánuco and Ucayali, in the central-eastern Peruvian jungle region.

For years they have been reporting and resisting the presence of invaders who cut down the forests for illegal purposes, while the government pays no heed and takes no action.

The most recent threat has led them to deploy their indigenous guard to defend themselves against new groups of outsiders who, through videos, have proclaimed their decision to occupy the territories over which the Kakataibo people have ancestral rights, which are backed by titles granted by the departmental authorities.

Six Kakataibo leaders who defended their lands and way of life were murdered in recent years. The latest was Mariano Isacama, whose body was found by the indigenous guard on Sunday 14 July after being missing for weeks.

In his interview with IPS, Odicio, president of the Native Federation of Kakataibo Communities (Fenacoka), lamented the authorities’ failure to find Isacama. The leader from the native community of Puerto Azul had been threatened by people linked to drug trafficking, suspects the federation.

Marcelo Odicio, president of the Native Federation of Kakataibo Communities, headquartered in the town of Aguaytía, in the department of Ucayal, in the Peruvian Amazon. Credit: Inforegión

Marcelo Odicio, president of the Native Federation of Kakataibo Communities, headquartered in the town of Aguaytía, in the department of Ucayal, in the Peruvian Amazon. Credit: Inforegión

During a press conference in Lima on 17 July, the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Aidesep), that brings together 109 federations representing 2,439 native communities, deplored the government’s indifference in the situation of the disappeared and murdered leader, which brings to 35 the number of Amazonian indigenous people murdered between 2023 and 2024.

Aidesep declared the territory of the Amazonian indigenous peoples under emergency and called for self-defence and protection mechanisms against what they called “unpunished violence unleashed by drug trafficking, mining and illegal logging under the protection of authorities complicit in neglect, inaction and corruption.”

Lack of vision for the Amazon

The province of Aguaytía, where the municipality of Padre de Abad is located and where the Kakataibo live, among other indigenous peoples, will account for 4.3% of the area under coca leaf cultivation by 2023, around 4,019 hectares, according to the latest report by the government’s National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs (Devida).

It is the sixth largest production area of this crop in the country.

The report highlights that Peru reduced illicit coca crops by just over 2% between 2022 and 2023, from 95,008 to 92,784 hectares, thus halting the trend of permanent expansion over the last seven years.

These figures are called into question by Ricardo Soberón, an expert on drug policy, security and Amazonia.

Ricardo Soberón, a renowned Peruvian expert on drug policy, Amazonia and security. Credit: Walter Hupiú / IPS

Ricardo Soberón, a renowned Peruvian expert on drug policy, Amazonia and security. Credit: Walter Hupiú / IPS

“The latest World Drug Report indicates that we have gone from 22 to 23 million cocaine users, and that the golden triangle in Burma, the triple border of Argentina-Paraguay-Brazil and the Amazonian trapezoid are privileged areas for production and export,” Soberón told IPS.

The latter holds “Putumayo and Yaguas, areas that according to Devida have reduced the 2,000 hectares under cultivation. I don’t believe it,” he said.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), that commissioned the report, also lists Peru as the world’s second largest cocaine producer.

Soberón added another element that discredits the conclusions of the Devida report: the government’s behaviour.

“There is no air interdiction in the Amazonian trapezoid, the non-lethal interdiction agreement with the United States will be operational in 2025. On the other hand, there are complaints against the anti-drug police in Loreto, the department where Putumayo and Yaguas are located, for their links with Brazilian mafias,” he explained.

He believes there was an attempt to whitewash “a government that is completely isolated”, referring to the administration led since December 2022 by interim president Dina Boluarte, with minimal levels of approval and questioned over a series of democratic setbacks.

Soberón, director of Devida in 2011-2012 and 2021-2022, has constantly warned that the government, at different levels, has not incorporated the indigenous agenda in its policies against illegalities in their ancestral areas.

This, he said, despite the growing pressure on their peoples and lands from “the largest illegal extractive economies in the world: drug trafficking, logging and gold mining,” the main causes of deforestation, loss of biodiversity and territorial dispossession.

Soberón argued that, given the magnitude of cocaine trafficking in the world, major trafficking groups need coca crop reserves, and Peruvian territory is fit for it. He deplored the minimal strategic vision among political, economic, commercial and social players in the Amazon.

Based on previous research, he says that the Cauca-Nariño bridge in southern Colombia, Putumayo in Peru, and parts of Brazil, form the Amazonian trapezoid: a fluid transit area not only for cocaine, but also for arms, supplies and gold.

Hence the great flow of cocaine in the area, for trafficking and distribution to the United States and other markets, which makes the jungle-like indigenous territories of the Peruvian Amazon attractive for coca crops and cocaine laboratories.

Soberón stresses it is possible to reconcile anti-drug policy with the protection of the Amazon, for example by promoting the citizen social pacts that he himself developed as a pilot project during his term in office.

It is a matter, he said, of turning the social players, such as the indigenous peoples, into decision-makers. But this requires a clear political will, which is not seen in the current Devida administration.

Mariano Isacama (left), a Kakataibo indigenous leader who disappeared and was murdered after allegedly receiving threats from people linked to drug traffickers. Next to him, the president of the indigenous organisation Orau, Magno López. Credit: Courtesy of Marcelo Odicio

Mariano Isacama (left), a Kakataibo indigenous leader who disappeared and was murdered after allegedly receiving threats from people linked to drug traffickers. Next to him, the president of the indigenous organisation Orau, Magno López. Credit: Courtesy of Marcelo Odicio

“We will not stand idly by”

Odicio, the president of Fenacoka, knows that the increased presence of invaders in their territories is aimed at planting pasture and coca leaf, an activity that destroys their forests. They have even installed maceration ponds near the communities.

When invaders arrive, they cut down the trees, burn them, raise cattle, take possession of the land and then demand the right to title, he explained. “After the anti-forestry law, they feel strong and say they have a right to the land, when it is not the case,” he said.

He refers to the reform of the Forestry and Wildlife Act No. 29763, in force since December 2023, which further weakens the security of indigenous peoples over their land rights and opens the door to legal and illegal extractive activities.

The leader, who has a wife and two young children, knows that the role of defender exposes him. “We are the ones who pay the consequences, we are visible to criminals, we are branded as informers, but I will continue to defend our rights. Along with the indigenous guard we will ensure that the autonomy of our territory is respected,” he stressed.

In the native community of Puerto Nuevo there are 200 Kakataibo families, with 500 more in Sinchi Roca. They live from the sustainable use of their forest resources, who are at risk from illegal activities. “We just want to live in peace, but we will defend ourselves because we cannot stand idly by if they do not respect our autonomy”, he said.

  Source

Achieving the 10-10-10 HIV Targets by 2025

Posted on by admin

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

Opinion

The Mandaue City government signs the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the city’s Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. This marks a significant milestone for the UNDP-supported Kadangpan Project. Credit: UNDP Philippines

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 26 2024 (IPS) – Around the world countries are taking powerful steps to protect people’s rights, dignity, and health. Dominica and Namibia became the most recent to decriminalize same-sex relations. South Africa made strides towards decriminalizing sex work.

Japan’s Supreme Court ruled that compulsory sterilization for transgender people is unconstitutional, and for the first time the essential role of harm reduction was recognized in a UN resolution on narcotic drugs.

These achievements all contribute to the landmark 10-10-10 HIV targets, adopted by countries in the 2021 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS, to reduce new infections and tackle criminalization, stigma and discrimination and gender inequality, issues especially critical for people living with HIV and key populations, including sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender people, people who inject drugs, and the incarcerated.

Yet, for every heartening step toward justice, setbacks and barriers remain. In the last three months alone, Georgia’s parliament moved to curb LGBTIQ+ rights, Iraq criminalized same-sex relationships, countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have signed into law sweeping restrictions on civil society and the Malawi courts upheld a ban on same-sex conduct.

Every action we take now will make a difference

With just one year left to meet these targets, we are still off track. What’s more, the global pushback on human rights and gender equality, constraints on civil society, and the acute funding gap for HIV prevention and addressing structural and social barriers, threaten continued progress on AIDS.

This is the time to re-double our efforts. Every single action taken now to meet the 10-10-10 targets will improve the lives and wellbeing of those living with HIV and other key populations well into the future. It will protect the health and development gains of the AIDS response.

If we are to realistically end AIDS by 2030, we must, in lockstep with recent scientific advances, urgently accelerate efforts by shaping enabling policy environments.

Together with partners, UNDP will use its platform at the AIDS 2024 conference, along with a new #Triple10Targets campaign, to call for urgent action to accelerate progress in scaling national key population-led strategies, promoting allyship and inclusive institutions and unlocking sustainable financing.

Community leadership

Key populations and their sexual partners remain at the highest risk for HIV, accounting for 55 percent of all new HIV infections in 2022 and 80 percent of new HIV infections outside of sub-Saharan Africa, a trend which persists. The heightened risk they face is, in part a result of stigma, discrimination and criminalization.

The heart of the HIV response was built by community advocates, past and present, on its inextricable links to human rights. People living with HIV and other key populations are still leading the charge, based on their experiences and knowledge of what their communities need to tackle discriminatory laws and HIV-related criminalization, which deny them services and violate their human rights.

The recent overturning of a colonial-era sodomy law in Namibia, brought to court by Friedel Dausab, a gay Namibian man, showcases such courageous leadership.

But those most affected by and at risk of discrimination, exclusion and violence must not be left to tackle this alone. Their efforts are that much more effective and powerful when met with global solidarity and inclusive institutions, backed by collaboration and investment.

UNDP continues to promote and prioritize the meaningful engagement of people living with HIV and other key populations in decision-making spaces and policy design, through the work done by SCALE, #WeBelong Africa and Being LGBTI in the Caribbean and its HIV and health work more broadly.

The role for allies

Expanding and deepening networks of allies, in particular fostering links between key populations and scientists, health workers, legal professionals, policymakers, faith leaders, media and the private sector, will be vital to building a sustainable HIV response. Finding common ground with broader social movements is a critical element to policy change and reform.

One such UNDP-led initiative brings together members from the judiciary in regional fora in Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean to deepen knowledge and understanding of law, rights and HIV, and the impact of punitive laws and policies.

This work has contributed to informing judicial decisions upholding the rights of marginalized communities in Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, Mauritius and Tajikistan and beyond.

Hundreds of parliamentarians worldwide can now support LGBTIQ+ inclusion through the Handbook for Parliamentarians on Advancing the Human Rights and Inclusion of LGBTI People. These demonstrate how allies can use their power and privilege to shape inclusive polices and institutions that support the dignity and human rights of people living with and affected by HIV.

Unlocking innovative financing

Progress will not be possible without addressing the funding gap. Yet investment in HIV is declining, and funding for primary prevention programmes in low- and middle-income countries has dropped, with a sobering 80 percent gap in 2023.

Countries must boost sustainable investments in the HIV response. This includes both for services and for addressing the structural barriers for these services, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Through SCALE, UNDP funds 44 key population-led organizations in 21 countries, boosting capacities to share good practice and remove the structural barriers which impede their access to services and violate their human rights. In the Philippines, Cebu United Rainbow LGBT Sector (CURLS) is working towards comprehensive key population protection ordinances, contributing to the recently-signed Implementing Rules and Regulations of Mandaue City’s LGBTIQ+ Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. These will encourage LGBTIQ+ communities to more proactively engage with services.

Strong national leadership and inclusive institutions are also vital to scaling up funding. Last year UNDP worked with 51 countries to expand innovative financing for HIV and health, utilizing strategies such as investment cases, social contracting, inclusive social protection, health taxes and co-financing.

Achieving health for all

As polycrisis threatens the hard-won gains of the HIV response and the clock winds down on the 10-10-10 targets, we must remain steadfast and focused on the task; scaling national key population-led strategies, promoting allyship and inclusive institutions, and unlocking sustainable funding. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Achieving the 10-10-10 targets will not only be a victory against this preventable disease, but also against the stigma and discrimination faced by those left furthest behind, ultimately benefiting the health of people everywhere.

There is no path to ending AIDS as a public health threat without the triple ten targets.

Mandeep Dhaliwal is Director of the HIV and Health Group, UNDP; Kevin Osborne is Manager, SCALE Initiative, HIV and Health Group, UNDP.

Source: UNDP

IPS UN Bureau

  Source