Rilli Lappalainen, Bridge 47’s founder and steering group chairperson. Credit: A D McKenzie/IPS

By A. D. McKenzie
BELGRADE, Apr 19 2019 (IPS)

“Communicate something to your partner in silence.”

The pairs of strangers or acquaintances who received this instruction gesticulated, smiled, shook their heads, touched their hearts and otherwise tried to transmit a message.

The exercise was meant to help diverse groups bridge communication gaps. It formed part of a series of sessions led by Bridge 47, a Finland-based organisation created “to bring people together to share and learn from each other” with the help of global citizenship education (GCED).

With 170 people taking part, and four sessions, Bridge 47 put GCED centre-stage at the recent annual International Civil Society Week (ICSW) meeting, held this year in Serbia’s capital, Belgrade, Apr. 8-12.

Co-hosted by the Johannesburg-based global civil society alliance CIVICUS and Serbian association Civic Initiatives, the event overall brought together more than 850 delegates from around the world, with Bridge 47 being the “biggest event partner”. 

Their sessions on dialogue showed how often people misconstrue what others are trying to say and how that can lead to conflict. In the exercise on silent communication, participants later explained in words what it was they’d been trying to communicate. Many of the “listeners” had got the signals wrong. 

“This meeting showed how we need to act together,” said Rilli Lappalainen, Bridge 47’s founder and steering group chairperson. “It showed how we need to allow the space for dialogue, and that dialogue is the essence of peaceful society. If we really want to make a change, we need to cooperate and communicate, rather than everyone sitting in their own box.”

Lappalainen said the name of the organisation comes from Target 4.7 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), set in 2015 for achievement by 2030.

Goal 4 is to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

Target 4.7 is to ensure that by 2030 “all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development”.

That is a mouthful, and some people may be put off by the usual UN-speak, but Lappalainen told IPS the simple message is that educators, rights defenders and civil society groups need to “join forces” across different sectors and to “build bridges”.

For the UN, an indicator of Target 4.7 is the “extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed” at all levels.

“This was the first time the UN recognised non-formal and informal education,” said Lappalainen. “Formal education is absolutely needed but it’s not enough, and we need to recognise the importance of learning outside of the school system. Part of our work is that we advocate for governments to give the space and respect for this kind of education.”

Officials say that GCED is an important system to teach mutual respect. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), global citizenship education is a response to the continuing challenges of human rights violations, inequality and poverty that “threaten peace and sustainability”.

The agency says that GCED “works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies”.

Christopher Castle, chief of UNESCO’s section for Health and Global Citizenship Education, said in an interview that it was important for schoolchildren to be given the opportunity to think about values such as “solidarity and cooperation”.

In addition to children, global citizenship education can benefit youth and adults, says UNESCO. This learning can be provided in various ways, but the main method in most countries will be through the formal education system. As such, governments can integrate the concept either as part of existing programmes or as a separate subject.

The “values” of global citizenship have long been discussed, but the concept gathered momentum with the launch of the UN Secretary-General’s Global Education First Initiative (GEFI) in 2012. This identified “fostering global citizenship” as one of the three priority areas of work, along with access to and quality of education.

During ICSW, participants at the Bridge 47 events included teachers, administrators and various members of civil society groups. Tom Roche, a furniture-maker from Ireland and founder of the NGO Just Forests, said the education sessions were useful in learning to create links and to navigate divides.

“We often have to work with people who have opposing views from us,” he told IPS, “We need skills to be able to understand everyone.”

Roche said that as a carpenter, he began questioning the use of imported wood in furniture-making and became concerned about the destruction of forests. Over the years, he has developed educational resources for schools in Ireland, to inform students about the effects of society’s dependence on wood, he said.

He also gives input to policies for “responsible wood procurement”, despite lack of understanding from some associates. “People used to say: ‘oh, you’re a tree-hugger’, and I would say that ‘no, we need to be responsible about how we cut down trees,’” he told IPS.

Roche added that he was at the Belgrade meeting to show support as well for the “frontline defenders” of the environment and of forests, many of whom have been attacked and even murdered over the past decade.

“The issue is very important at this meeting, and it should be,” he said, pointing out that the GCED events provided “new ways to deliver the same message”.

Along with communication exercises, Bridge 47 said that the use of story-telling, art and satire was important to have an impact on social movement. (Amsterdam-based cartoonist Floris Oudshoorn did live drawings of the group’s ICSW discussions, for instance, covering climate change, rights activism and a range of other issues.)

“We want to encourage active citizenship,” said Nora Forsbacka, Bridge 47’s project manager. “We want citizens to speak out and take action, to reflect on our place in the world and the privileges we carry. All this requires a significant transformation in how we think about things.”

** In this version the lede contains additional information describing a communication exercise.

Excerpt:

Thousands of youth gather in Rome on Friday, Mar. 15, to join the climate strike, a global movement that aims to make governments and institutions aware of taking serious steps to implement the Paris Agreements and save the planet. Together First, one of the partners of ICSW, is among the groups urging for a more inclusive, collaborative movement to work towards solutions for all. Credit: Maged Srour/IPS

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 16 2019 (IPS)

Increasingly facing restrictions and assault, civil society from around the world have come together to celebrate and promote people power.

Organised by CIVICUS, International Civil Society Week (ICSW) brought together civil society organisations and activists to discuss the threats and challenges that they face in a world where arbitrary detention, censorship, and exclusion have sadly become the norm.

Together First, one of the partners of ICSW, is among the groups urging for a more inclusive, collaborative movement to work towards solutions for all.

IPS spoke to Giovanna Marques Kuele, non-resident research fellow at Igarapé Institute (Brazil) and a member of Together First’s informal steering group, about the importance of civil society and working together.

Giovanna Marques Kuele, non-resident research fellow at Igarapé Institute (Brazil) and a member of Together First’s informal steering group speaks to IPS about the importance of civil society and working together.

Inter Press Service (IPS): How important is the protection and inclusion of civil society and human rights defenders to you and the global system as a whole?

Giovanna Marques Kuele (GMK): The protection and inclusion of civil society and human rights defenders are essential. While young people are raising their voices to demand inclusion for change, human rights defenders are under attack across the globe, including in my home country Brazil.

During the Civil Society Summit—which took place on the first day of ICSW—Together First endorsed the “The Belgrade Call to Action,” which calls on United Nations member states to take concrete urgent action against the shrinking space for civil society and the increasing reprisals against human rights defenders. Together First relies on the protection of civic space because we—civil society together—are the voices and agents of change that can push for the actions we sorely need to avert existential risks such as climate change.

For us, multilateralism is about more than states. It is about people and organisations working together to achieve a common goal. We at Together First believe that we can no longer rely on the turgid rate of progress by world leaders. Instead, we need to raise our voices and say: we can and must do better. And so we are building a movement that is truly global and meaningfully inclusive. During the ICSW, as a small first step, I met with youngsters who work at grassroots organisations to make sure we find ways to echo their voices, as decisions and actions taken in distance places, like city capitals and New York, can affect their daily lives.

IPS: What are the biggest challenges faced by civil society and human rights defenders today?

GMK: Like many of our colleagues at the ICSW meeting, Together First believes that multilateralism is under threat at a time when we need it more than ever. Global risks such as climate change and weapons proliferation need a collective response. These risks can be grouped into three sets: the ones great powers have not wanted to address (e.g. climate change), the risks insufficiently understood by politicians (e.g. new technologies), and the risks considered too difficult (e.g. the glaring deficit in cyber governance). These risks need collective action. But many governments are overwhelmed. Some are turning inwards, becoming more fiercely nationalist. As a result, the UN—already overstretched and underfunded—is now facing further cuts and struggling to deliver in this difficult environment.

IPS: As a multi-stakeholder group, how does Together First work with and mobilise civil society?

GMK: Together First seeks to build a global people’s movement for a people-centred multilateralism. Together, we want to identify and call for transformative next steps – the most important changes we can make now to address global risks. We also want to raise our level of ambition. The challenges we face are vast and complex; we must demand more than the current glacial pace of change.

Ultimately, we know that if we want to build the effective global governance system we so badly need, we cannot rely on world leaders alone. We must open up the conversation so that, in turn, we can make the system itself transparent and inclusive, where stakeholders play a meaningful role in the decisions and actions that affect their lives.

IPS: What role can the UN play to better promote and protect civil society?

GMK: Together First believes that by harnessing progressive power of civil society and by deploying an innovative and thorough methodology, we can work together to identify feasible and actionable steps to make global governance more effective – and put them into practice.

One of these steps must involve a greater role at the UN for civil society, who are key actors in the policy space and on the ground. What I heard from many people at ICSW is that organisations–as much as they work to achieve SDGs at country level, for instance–do not feel connected to the UN Headquarters, where decisions are ultimately taken. A concrete suggestion is to establish an Envoy for Civil Society—carefully chosen to make sure she or he is able to understand and transmit grassroots concerns to the upper levels.

IPS: As International Civil Society Week comes to a close, what message would you want civil society groups and human rights defenders to take home?

GMK: At ICSW, Together First, with our partners UN2020, made a public call for civil society to share their perspectives and need so we can demand that they are on the table for the UN’s 75th Anniversary in 2020.

Moving forward, it’s essential that our voices are heard at key meetings in the lead up to 2020. On April 23, I will be speaking at an event on building trust in multilateralism organised by the President of the General Assembly and IPI. Please send me your questions and comments via #MultilateralismMatters @TogetherFirst and I will be sure to raise them.

As the theme of this year suggested, ICSW is a testament to the existence of the ‘Power of Togetherness’ – the reality that people and organisations around the world are working together to unlock the potential of collective action. I think the energy of this event showed that we can believe that together it is possible to promote meaningful and inclusive change.

Excerpt:

By Sivananthi Thanenthiran
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Apr 15 2019 (IPS)

Over a week ago – on April 3 – Brunei, the tiny South East Asian kingdom on the island of Borneo, announced its citizens would face the full force of the Shariah law.

The kingdom has decided to implement the death penalty by stoning as a punishment for homosexuality and extramarital relations, despite global outcry from the LGBT community and human rights advocates against this specific barbaric punishment.

Brunei’s adoption of the Sharia law has been in stages. The first phase began on May 1, 2014. Initial phases dealt with misdemeanours such as indecent behaviour, and then moved to meting out punishments of flogging and amputation of limbs for crimes such as theft and robbery.

However, there has been a deathly silence around the other crimes enumerated within the Sharia laws. This may have been largely due to the fact that the monarchy lacks a vibrant civil society tracking – for obvious reasons, analysing and generating data on government laws and policies, and holding the government accountable.

Sivananthi Thanenthiran

Already in the autonomous province of Aceh, Indonesia, Sharia laws are fully implemented limiting the dress and mobility of women, and ensuring flogging for a variety of offences is carried out. In May 2017, two gay men were sentenced to be flogged 85 times each for homosexuality, after being filmed by vigilantes.

The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao also hopes to follow suit in instituting some form of Sharia. Some states in Malaysia have already enacted the Sharia code, and in Kelantan, caning was introduced in 2017.

Brunei’s Sharia laws – akin to several Middle Eastern countries, notably Saudi Arabia – cover a variety of crimes, many of which in modern day parlance fall within the personal realm.

These include consensual sex outside of marriage (both premarital and extramarital sex, termed as adultery), consensual sex between people of the same sex (including women, who show signs of sexual conduct though without penetration), attempting to commit adultery (example given as lying on the bed together), close proximity with a person of the opposite sex, causing a miscarriage, pregnancy out of wedlock, as well as variety of non-crimes such as consuming alcohol and eating during the fasting month.

The state obsession with sex, and legislating sex, has been perennial. In the development of modern thought, most of these activities (deemed criminal by the kingdom of Brunei), are considered as private behaviours of citizens.

The Sharia laws infringe on citizens’ rights to privacy – that sexuality and sexual behaviour is a private matter. One’s sexual activities and sexual orientation should be determined by the individual and not the State.

The Sharia laws then serve not only to enforce compulsory heterosexuality, but only marital sexuality – signalling the state’s refusal to recognise citizens’ rights to privacy and self-determination on matters of sexuality.

The burden on women and girls is also exacerbated by such laws. For example, a Muslim woman who is pregnant or who gives birth to a child out of wedlock is guilty of an offence, and can be fined not more than BND $8,000 (1BND = 0.74USD approx) and/or imprisoned for a maximum of two years.

In most of the countries of the world, pregnancy out of wedlock is not a crime in anyway, and harsh punishments on a new mother do not speak of justice tempered with mercy. And should a woman find herself with an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of marital status, she cannot procure an abortion easily.

Both first trimester and second trimester abortion (characterised in the Sharia laws as miscarriage of pregnancy and ‘miscarriage of a foetus’), voluntary and involuntary, are considered as crimes.

A woman who ‘attempts to miscarry’ a pregnancy can be fined up to BND$12,000 and/or be imprisoned for a maximum of three years. A woman who attempts to ‘miscarry a foetus’, can be fined up to $20,000-40,000 and/or imprisoned for a maximum of five to 10 years, depending on whether the foetus temporarily survives.

These are extremely harsh measures which do not take into consideration women’s lived realities and choices they have to navigate, especially in light of equally harsh punishments for carrying pregnancies to term, if those pregnancies are out of wedlock.

A number of these Sharia laws are applicable to both Muslims and non-Muslims, and in this violates freedom of religion and belief by imposing the laws, beliefs and punishments, of one particular religion on non-practitioners of that religion, to the extent that they can lose their lives for these beliefs.

Theocratic states insidiously apply the machineries of the state to force the state’s religious beliefs on all citizens irrespective of religious affiliation. Freedom of religion must also necessarily include freedom from religion.

The inhuman and archaic punishments enumerated in these Sharia laws – amputation, caning and whipping, stoning in no way demonstrate the golden ideal of justice tempered with mercy. The quality of mercy in meting out punishment is crucial to any society as it means “forbearance to inflict harm, under circumstances of provocation, when one has the power to inflict it.”

Harsh laws hurt people. These Sharia laws then do not testify to puritanical moral rigour: rather they demonstrate the moral failure of the state.

Excerpt:

By Helen Kidan
LONDON, Apr 15 2019 (IPS)

As the first anniversary of the swearing on Ethiopia’s Prime Minster Abiy Ahmed rolled around last week, Ethiopians – and observers worldwide – marvelled at the pace and scale of radical reform he has brought to the formerly repressed country in the past year.

Abiy has released hundreds of political prisoners, overturned or revised repressive laws and allowed countless political exiles to return, among a number of changes.

But perhaps, one of the most significant moves for the region, has been his ending of the decades-long armed conflict with neighbouring Eritrea with the initiation of a historic peace deal.

The two countries have begun restoring diplomatic relations as part of that peace process. Abiy’s acclaimed reforms have served to brighten the spotlight of criticism on Eritrea for its notoriously brutal repression of citizens’ fundamental freedoms and dissent, which has prompted hundreds of thousands to flee their homeland.

And Eritrea’s long-running crackdown continues to have a particular cost for Eritrean women. While Abiy Ahmed has won wide praise for his appointment of a record number of women cabinet ministers along with Africa’s only female head of state, women in Eritrea struggle to reconcile the gender disparity they face since their own struggle for independence.

There was a time in the country’s history when the role of women occupied a higher status than it does now. Eritrean women played a crucial role during their country’s 30-year war of independence from Ethiopia. They comprised a third of Eritrea’s fighting force and were active across all levels of the military.

But their recruitment to the army’s ranks alongside men had far less to do gender equality than for the need for able-bodied soldiers. Whilst many women found greater gender equality on the war fronts, the cultural gender inequalities persisted.

In these circumstances, they became masculinised. They played the roles of freedom fighters as well as mothers, wives and daughters, and this is what distinguished them from their male comrades.

After independence, when combatants returned to their families, these war hardened fighters were ostracised, looked at as unfeminine and not marriage material.

Many marriages that women fighters had entered into during the war were rejected by their families and many were forced to separate from their husbands. The collapse of their marriages and their stigmatisation had a detrimental effect on them, leading to depression and even suicide.

Whatever rights female combatants gained on the frontline before independence, were slowly eroded after. They received no support for post-war rehabilitation and reintegration back to civilian life where they had to care for their families. With the objective achieved, the government expected them to go home and fit back in.

Many had spent their entire youth on the front in the 30-year war and found it very difficult to adapt to civilian life and earn a living without employable skills.

The two-year border military conflict with Ethiopia that erupted in 1998 led to increased repression inside Eritrea. The war and growing state restrictions impacted all Eritreans but women had it especially hard.

This war and the independence struggle bore a heavy human cost. By official accounts, at least 19,000 Eritrean soldiers were killed in the border conflict. As a result, some 53% of households are headed by women, who in many cases, raised children without fathers.

The many men that were disappeared by the state for expressing dissent also contributed to this hardship. The state’s clampdown on dissent and fundamental freedoms, hurt families and communities and more women were targeted.

Young Eritrean women also suffered and continue to suffer in the military camps – Eritrea has maintained a policy of compulsory conscription – and in detention centres, where they face all forms of gender-based violence.

Since the government has barred any independent NGOs from operating inside Eritrea, it is extremely difficult for women to get the support they need. Existing laws do not help women and as government officials are often responsible for these abuses, most cases go unreported.

Eritrea’s notorious repressive state policies have caused people to flee their homeland en mass as asylum seekers. According to the United Nations’ International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Eritreans comprise the ninth largest refugee group in the world, with almost half a million displaced across numerous countries.

When Eritrean girls and women become refugees in neighbouring countries, many are abused by traffickers, raped and tortured and go on to suffer further human rights abuses.

But at home, they face a blatant gender bias that has increasingly taken root since the independence struggle. The current peace process with Ethiopia is a clear example: there was not a single woman in the high-level delegation that Eritrea sent to Ethiopia for landmark peace talks in June last year.

This illustrates the extent to which women have disappeared from the social, economic and political scene of Eritrean society. There cannot be effective peace if half the population is not allowed to participate in the process at a political and governmental level – not as mere tokens but as effectual politicians, negotiators and mediators.

Eritrean women need to be part of any peace process if it is to be sustainable and ensuring that women have the skills to negotiate for their interests is key in this respect. This will not only have an impact for Eritrean women or Eritrea but also for the region.

The other aspect that holds women back is the fact that they are educationally disadvantaged and economically marginalised and cannot compete for leadership positions. Moreover, they lack the confidence and skills needed to compete meaningfully in the workplace.

This situation is perpetuated when these women leave Eritrea. And we see a much lower participation of women in civil society organisations now compared with the period during the independence war, when participation of women at the grassroots level was far greater.

The last 27 years have really left women side-lined, with no voice and representation and inactive at the grassroots. But many are prepared to change that.

The Network of Eritrean Women (NEW) is an independent organisation established in the Eritrean diaspora with the aim of empowering women and fighting all forms of discrimination. NEW works with different Eritrean women’s groups across Europe and has members in Africa, the United States and the Middle East.

Women’s empowerment is crucial to ensure their voices are heard and needs met. In the face of repression, it is imperative that a space is opened for the feminist perspective in Eritrea and for women to be engaged in the dynamics of their society.

Excerpt:

More than 200 civil society leaders and human rights activists from some 100 countries took to the streets of Belgrade, Serbia in solidarity with those whose basic freedoms are at risk. They participated in the International Civil Society Week (ICSW), sponsored by CIVICUS, which took place in Belgrade, April 8-12. Courtesy: CIVICUS

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 15 2019 (IPS)

Counterterrorism measures are not only affecting extremist groups, but are also impacting a crucial sector for peace and security in the world: civil society.

Civil society has long played a crucial role in society, providing life-saving assistance and upholding human rights for all.

However, counterterrorism measures, which are meant to protect civilians, are directly, and often intentionally, undermining such critical work.

“Civil society is under increased assault in the name of countering terrorism,” Human Rights Watch’s senior counterterrorism researcher Letta Tayler told IPS, pointing to a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions as among the culprits.

“Nearly two decades after the September 11 attacks, we are seeing a very clear pattern of overly broad counterterrorism resolutions. We are seeing a clear pattern of violations on the ground that are being carried out in the name of complying with binding Security Council counterterrorism resolutions,” she added.

Just two weeks after September 11, 2001, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1373 which called states to adopt and implement measures to prevent and combat terrorism.

Since then, more than 140 countries have adopted counterterrorism laws.

The newly approved Resolution 2462, passed at the end of March, requires member states to criminalise financial assistance to terrorist individuals or groups “for any purpose” even if the aid is indirect and provided “in the absence of a link to a specific terrorist act.”

While the resolution does include some language on human rights protections, Tayler noted that it is not sufficient.

“It is not sufficiently spelled out to make very clear to member states what they can and cannot do that might violate human rights on the ground,” she said.

Blurred Lines

Among the major issues concerning these resolutions is that there is no universal, legal definition of terrorism, allowing states to craft their own, usually broad, definitions. This has put civil society organisations and human rights defenders (HRDs) alike at risk of detention and left vulnerable populations without essential life-saving assistance.

“I think it is irresponsible of the Security Council to pass binding resolutions that leave up to States to craft their own definitions of terrorism…that’s how you end up with counterterrorism laws that criminalise peaceful protest or criticising the state,” Tayler said.

Oxfam’s Humanitarian Policy Lead Paul Scott echoed similar sentiments to IPS, stating: “The Security Council, by being overly broad, is just giving [governments] the tools to restrict civil society.”

According to Front Line Defenders, an Irish-based human rights organisation, 58 percent of its cases in 2018 saw HRDs charged under national security legislation.

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism Fionnuala Ní Aoláin found that 67 percent of her mandate’s communications regarding civil society were related to the use of counter-terrorism, and noted that country’s counterterrorism laws are being used as a “shortcut to targeting democratic protest and dissent.”

In April 2018, thousands of people took to the streets in Nicaragua to protest controversial reforms to the country’s social security system.

According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, over 300 people have been killed, more than 2,000 injured, and 2,000 arrested—some of whom were reportedly subject to torture and sexual violence when detained.

Many of those arrested will also be tried as terrorists due to a new law that expanded the definition of terrorism to include a range of crimes such as damage to public and private property.

At least 300 people, including human rights defenders, face charges of terrorism.

The Central American country said that the law was passed to comply with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental body that works alongside the Security Council to combat terrorist financing.

A Civil Society Facing Uncivility

Tayler also pointed to the lack of consequences for States that pass counterterrorism laws that do not abide by their obligations under international law.

In Resolution 2462, member states are told to comply with international humanitarian law when cracking down on terrorist financing but does not require countries to consider the effect of such measures on humanitarian activities such as providing food and medical care.

“In the zeal to be as tough looking as they can possibly can, governments have overlooked very very easy ways to protect those of us who are providing life-saving aid,” Paul told IPS.

The lack of protections for civil society and its impacts was most visible during the 2011 famine in Somalia.

In an effort to restrict “material support” to terrorist groups, countries such as the United States enacted counterterrorism legislation which blocked aid into areas controlled by Al-Shabab.

This not only impeded local and international organisations from doing their job, but one report noted that the constraints contributed to the deaths of over 250,000 people in the East African nation.

The problem has only gotten worse since then, Paul noted.

“The measures imposed by governments are unnecessarily broad and they prevent us from working in areas that are controlled by designated terrorist entities. What they have essentially done is criminalise humanitarian assistance,” he said.

Tunisia has used its terrorism financing laws to shut down a number of civil society organisations.

According to the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, approximately 200 organisations were dissolved and almost 950 others were delivered notices, referring them to courts on charges of “financial irregularities” or “receiving foreign funds to support terrorism” despite the lack of substantive evidence.

Many of the dissolved organisations provided aid and relief for orphans and the disabled.

All Eyes on Deck

Tayler highlighted the importance of the UN and civil society to monitor how counterterrorism resolutions such as Resolution 2462 are used on the ground.

“While we would love to see amendments to this resolution, pragmatically the next best step is for all eyes—the eyes of civil society, the UN, regional organisations—to focus on just how states implement this resolution to make sure that overly broad language is not used by states to become a tool of repression,” she said.

“The UN and leaders of countries around the world should use International Civil Society Week as an opportunity to take stock of the risk that this trend has posed on both to life-saving aid organisations and human rights defenders and to reverse this dangerous trend,” Tayler added.

Paul pointed to the need to educate both the public and policymakers on counterterrorism and its spillover effects as well as the importance of civil society in the global system.

“Civil society is a key part of effective governance. We don’t get effective public services, we don’t get peace, we don’t get to move forward with the anti-poverty agenda if civil society actors aren’t strong and empowered,” he said.

“If governments aren’t careful about protecting our right to stand up for marginalised and vulnerable populations, everyone will hurt. Not just those populations. It will have an effect broadly on our societies,” Paul added.

Excerpt:

Youth activist Abraham M. Keita is the founder of the Liberia-based Giving Hope to Children Foundation and is among a growing movement of youth activists who are fighting for the defence of civil liberties and demanding that government act on important issues. Credit: A D McKenzie/IPS

By A. D. McKenzie
BELGRADE, Apr 15 2019 (IPS)

Abraham M. Keita says he was nine years old when a girl of thirteen was sexually assaulted and strangled in his home community in Liberia.

The anger, outrage and sadness he felt would lead him to start advocating for children’s rights – participating in marches, organising protests and going up against the powerful, in a country where sexual abuse of children is among the worst in the world, according to United Nations figures.

Keita will turn 20 years old later this month, and he says he has already spent half of his life as an activist for change.

“I’ve been marching since I was 10,” he told IPS with a quiet smile.

A tall, slim young man, with a thoughtful air, Keita was among the strong representation of youth activists at the annual International Civil Society Week (ICSW) meeting, held this year in Belgrade Apr. 8-12.

Co-hosted by the Johannesburg-based global civil society alliance CIVICUS and Serbian association Civic Initiatives, the event brought together more than 850 delegates from around the world. Keita and other activists, such as 17-year-old Gabriel dos Santos of Brazil, were invited by the organisers to join the discussion on how to build movements for change.

Keita, the 2015 winner of the International Children’s Peace Prize (an annual award from the Amsterdam-based KidsRight Foundation to a child who “fights courageously for children’s rights” – winners include Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai), is also the founder of the Liberia-based Giving Hope to Children Foundation.

He is among a growing movement of youth activists who are fighting for the defence of civil liberties and demanding that government act on important issues such as protecting children from violence, ensuring sustainable development, and reducing global warming, according to ICSW organisers.

“The youth engagement in ICSW in general is always extremely important to achieve the creation of partnerships among diverse groups and to continue raising awareness of the contributions young people offer to civil society spaces,” said Elisa Novoa, CIVICUS’ youth engagement coordinator.

During the event, youth activists sent out a message calling for civil society to “open up the space” to diverse groups.

“Civil society should understand the importance of sharing power and enabling inclusion in a meaningful and uplifting manner,” their statement said. “We as young people of diversity acknowledge and recognise the importance of having voices of vulnerability at the forefront of change. We need to redefine how we provide solutions and build togetherness.”

Activists also requested trust from donors, encouraging sponsors to be bold in funding organisations that are truly youth led.

For many such groups, a central theme is protecting the vulnerable, a position that Keita has taken. He told IPS that he grew up among vulnerable children, living in poverty in a slum in the Liberian capital Monrovia with his mother and siblings – his father was killed before he was five years old, during Liberia’s brutal and long-lasting civil war.

Different sides in the conflict used children as child soldiers and sexually abused many of them, as reports by the UN and other organisations have shown. That legacy continues, with a high number of girls and women being assaulted, while most of the rapists go unpunished.

According to Liberian government figures, from January to September 2018, nearly 900 sexual and gender-based cases of violence were reported, including 500 rape cases of which 475 involved children.

The statistics provide “alarming evidence that we are still not dealing with this problem in an effective manner”, said Liberia’s President George Weah last October, as quoted in local media.

Keita points out that since many incidents of sexual violence go unreported, the number of children affected is much higher than in official data. Furthermore, cases of sexual violence are not prosecuted quickly enough.

“Hundreds of cases are still in the courts, and the perpetrators are roaming freely,” he said.
The problem is rooted in all levels of society and includes civil society as well as government representatives, with individuals responsible for protecting children being charged with sexual abuses.

In 2017, a Liberian lawmaker allegedly raped a 13-year-old girl, making her pregnant. Keita organised protests against the powerful individual and was himself arrested and charged with “criminal coercion”, he said.

These charges were eventually dropped. The lawmaker meanwhile appeared in court, spent two days in jail, and since 2017, activists have not been able to locate the girl or her family, Keita told IPS. He and other advocates are still pushing for prosecution of the case, even if that may lead to their own detention, he added.

Arrests and smears are among the official tactics used to suppress youth advocates, similar to those used against human rights defenders in general, said ICSW delegates. Members of the public, too, sometimes think that youth activists are misguided and can tend to dismiss their work.

But as youth around the world join forces, their campaigns for rights and environmental action are becoming a growing force.

In Belgrade, youth volunteers assisted with the organisation of ICSW, including being monitors for the closing event – a symbolic “run for freedom” around the meeting’s venue, through a few of the city’s streets, as part of new initiative Freedom Runner.

Dušanka, a 20-year-old Serbian university student studying international affairs and political science, told IPS she had volunteered because she intended to work in civil society, was interested in diversity and wished to make a difference.

“I want to help all people,” she said. “People are different but we’re all equal. That’s a message to the world.”

Along with their idealism, youth activists are aware of the risks they run. Keita told IPS that he sometimes felt a “little afraid”, and that his mother and family members worry too.

“But whatever happens to me, I want to act so things will change, [and] not continue being the same,” he said.

Excerpt:

By Mouna Ben Garga
TUNIS, Apr 12 2019 (IPS)

Sometimes a peak into the future reminds us just how stuck we are in the past and present.

It was the talk of the Middle East’s largest annual media industry gathering: a robot journalist – the region’s first – that wowed some 3,000 industry leaders and practitioners at the Arab Media Forum (AMF) in Dubai recently.

In an address titled “Future News Anchors”, the robot, known as A20-50, waxed lyrical about robots that would report ‘tirelessly’ all day, every day and be programmed to do any task.

At a conference organised around the theme, “Arab Media: From Now to The Future”, it was ironic that journalism produced by programmed automatons was held up as a glimpse of what the future held for media in the Arab world.

Ironic because, considering the state of journalism in the Middle East, it doesn’t sound as much like the future as the region’s present and past.

Looking at news output in this polarized landscape, it often seems that journalists (and their organisations) are like robots, programmed to produce and promote certain political agendas ‘tirelessly’, all day, every day.

From Egypt to Kuwait, most news outlets support specific positions, usually those espoused by the companies or organisations that own or control them – often either toeing the official line or supporting rival agendas or political opposition.

Following the 2013 coup in Egypt and the civil wars in Syria, Yemen and Libya over the past decade, the pro-government media used the fear of instability and war to silence citizens and twist the facts.

For instance, the Egyptian mainstream media convinced its audience that the 2013 massacre of more than 900 people in Cairo was the only way to fight against terrorism.

In the context of the Middle Eastern media coverage of the killing of the Saudi journalist Khashoggi, both Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya television channels took up positions in front of the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and resumed the fierce row between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, from there.

The truth was lost in this fierce political conflict and the Arab viewer had to cross-check the presented facts with other international reporting. This implicit bias and lack of balance polarized Arab public opinion and pushed news consumers to social media in search of trusted factual information, crushing the credibility in traditional media.

And when they aren’t busy working to manipulate bias in news coverage, Arab authorities are old hands at plain old media repression. Not surprisingly, nations in the Middle East and North Africa again find themselves at the bottom of Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index of 2018.

Across the region, journalists and media organisations are under attack for their reporting – from intimidation to arrests, detention, prosecution and the shuttering of outlets. Four Arab countries – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria – top the list of the world’s worst jailers of journalists ,according to the 2018 press freedom report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Egypt jailed the most number of journalists on “false news” charges – 19, amid heightened global rhetoric about so-called fake news; The murder of exiled Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents in the country’s Instanbul consulate illustrated the extreme lengths the Gulf kingdom’s leaders would go to stop published criticism.

And in Syria, 13 journalists were killed in 2017, and more than 40 journalists and citizen-journalists are currently detained, kidnapped or have disappeared.

In this complex context of divisions, repression and lack of public trust, the future of trustworthy Arab media is in the hands of alternative media, journalists’ unity and active citizens.

Since the Arab spring, independent journalism platforms such as Daraj, Nawaat in Tunisia, and Beirut-based Raseef22 have emerged, offering alternative narratives that counter state propaganda and mainstream media self-censorship.

But the challenges for these organisations are their limited reach – many mainstream news consumers consider them elitist and targeting “intellectual” users – and their financial sustainability.

The key here is inclusivity. One of the most successful news outlets is AJ+ Arabic, a project that grew out of Al Jazeera’s Incubation and Innovation Group, focusing exclusively on social platforms targeting millennials.

The other major challenge – financial survival – calls for new, sustainable journalism business models developed around new forms of storytelling and original content production supported by creative funding approaches including crowdfunding and data sales or services, for example.

Empowering citizen journalism is another possible solution to producing independent media in the Arab world. Indeed, citizen journalists, young bloggers, and active tweeps are not governed by the same relationship between the state and media professionals and are authentic voices and channels to the Arab street – they speak its language and represent its concerns and challenges.

Alternative media leaders need to build the citizen capacity beyond data collection and reporting to include online security, storytelling and counter-narratives. Increasing the transfer of these savoir-faire to citizens would amplify more voices to tackle the polarization effect through facts.

But of course, there is a place in the future of quality Arab media for professional journalism. Professional bodies have a role to play in fight for press freedom in the region.

Local unions have to wage numerous battles for their own independence through advocating for better legislation that affords greater protection to reporters and that prohibits prosecutions for reporting.

They have to promote the development of more journalistic organisations and more actively resist government attempts to contain and control the media by positioning themselves as defenders of free, independent media, creating strong alliances with alternative media, citizens journalists and social media influencers.

They need to be inclusive to promote a positive narrative about the role of the media in citizens’ lives and bridge the social gap between journalists and the general public to increase support for stronger independent media.

As a major regional proxy war rages on in the region, dominating headlines and geopolitical agendas, the battle for a future independent Arab media that is trusted and trustworthy, is one that seeks to do away with robotic journalists and organisations programmed only to serve the interests of the powerful.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 12 2019 (IPS)

The civic space in several African countries, including Tanzania, Burundi, Zambia, Sudan, Mozambique, Somalia and Eritrea, is gradually shrinking – and mostly under authoritarian leaders and repressive regimes.

The attacks are directed largely against human rights and civil society organizations (CSOs)— and specifically against the news media.

The UN Human Rights Office in Burundi was closed down last February at the insistence of the government, with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet expressing “deep regrets” over the closure, after a 23-year presence in the country.

“Since the UN Human Rights Office in Burundi was established in 1995, for many years we worked with the Government on peacebuilding, security sector reform, justice sector reform and helped build institutional and civil society capacity on a whole host of human rights issues,” Bachelet noted.

She said the Office helped ensure the incorporation of a human rights dimension to the implementation of the Arusha Agreement, which was the bedrock of the country’s stability for many years.

The Office played a leading role in the establishment of the independent National Commission on Human Rights, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in legislative reforms and in the emergence of strong civil society organizations, Bachelet added.

Taking a wider look at the status of human rights and CSOs in the African continent, Judy Gitau, Regional Coordinator for the Africa Office of Equality Now, told IPS “civil society is under attack by repressive regimes in various African countries”.

One example is Tanzania, she said, where the State is clamping down on basic freedoms like association and peaceful assembly, with CSOs facing threats of closure if they highlight human rights violations.

“Not even freedom of expression is spared as all manner of laws are being introduced and invoked to limit civil society and media from expressing themselves online or on other written or published platforms.”

In Tanzania, she pointed out, the attack on civil society is now going beyond freedom of movement and association to daily operations, with some of actors being required to inform state officials of their day to day activities.

NGOs are also anxious about the security of their data and information within their premises, and the privacy of their internal and external communication.

“Burundi caused the United Nations to shut its local human rights office after 23 years, indicating that as a government it had made sufficient progress in human rights, so that the existence of the U.N. office was no longer justified.

However, opposing reports indicate that since 2015, when the incumbent President indicated he would run for a third term, contrary to Burundi’s Constitution, human rights violations have been rampant in Burundi, and this includes attacks against civil society activists highlighting violations of the constitution.

“The presence of an independent intergovernmental body in a State experiencing some form of civil unrest may result in the monitoring and recording of violations that can potentially be used in future international criminal proceedings.

So, it is telling, she said, that the UN local office would be shut down in Burundi at a time when there is a surge in reported violations occurring.

“It is most unfortunate that these developments are ongoing whilst meanwhile at the regional level there are also challenges, with the African Union shrinking its State accountability platform by limiting the engagement of civil society at the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and the African Court. ”

Addressing reporters April 2, Robert Palladino, Deputy Spokesperson at the US State Department said the US is also deeply concerned by the Government of Burundi’s decision to extend indefinitely the suspension of broadcasts by the Voice of America (VOA) and to revoke the operating license of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

This decision raises serious concerns for the freedom of expression enshrined in article 31 of Burundi’s constitution as well as for Burundi’s international human rights obligations.

“We call on the government to rescind its decision, and we urge the Government of Burundi to allow all journalists to operate in an environment free from intimidation. A free and independent media is indispensable to a vibrant, functioning democracy and to free and fair elections in 2020,” he declared.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has condemned the ban on Tanzania’s leading newspaper, The Citizen, pointing out it is part of a series of attacks on freedom of expression by the government of President John Pombe Magufuli.

Last year several CSO, including the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) urged Magufuli to end attacks on journalists and acknowledge the critical role that the civil society and independent media play in promoting peaceful coexistence.

‘‘This is all part of a wider pattern of repression targeting freedom of expression over the past few years including creating an excessively high fee to blog, criminalizing posting certain content online, fining TV stations, and prohibiting the publication of independent statistics without government permission”, HRW warned.

In March CPJ welcomed a ruling by the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) that multiple sections of Tanzania’s Media Services Act restrict press freedom and freedom of expression, and called on the Tanzanian government to repeal the act.

Last week, the CPJ and 37 other CSOs also issued a joint statement urging Mozambican authorities to immediately and unconditionally release community radio journalist Amade Abubacar, who has been in pre-trial detention since his arrest on January 5.

On the situation in conflict-ridden Sudan, Clement Nyaltesossi Voule, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression criticized the excessive use of force against peaceful protesters in Sudan.

According to one report, over 20 people have been killed and over 100 injured since 6 April—besides widespread arrests and attacks on journalists by the security forces.

A UN Commission of Inquiry has called on Eritrea to investigate allegations of extrajudicial killings by its security forces, including torture and enslaving hundreds of thousands, going back to 2016.

And in a policy briefing released in March, titled “Shrining Space in Zambia: Time for Action”, ActionAid said Zambia has a range of statutes that gives the country very broad powers to silence free expression and limit freedom of assembly.

“Some of these laws, like the 1930 Penal Code, were first used by the British to crack down on anti-colonial movements. Others such as the NGOs Act, Independent Broadcasting Act, and the proposed Cyber Crime Act, were recently introduced to regulate and restrict newer forms of speech and association”.

In a statement released here, Bachelet reminded the authorities in Sudan of their overarching duty to ensure the protection of the human rights of all people and to refrain from the use of violence.

“This is a very critical, volatile moment for Sudan and there is deep uncertainty and unease about the future,” Bachelet said.

“We are closely monitoring developments and call on the authorities to refrain from using force against peaceful protestors, and to ensure that security forces and judicial authorities act in full accordance with the rule of law and Sudan’s international human rights obligations.”

She said “the crisis in Sudan has its roots in human rights grievances – economic, social, civil and political rights. The solution must also be grounded in human rights. I call on the Government to address the people’s demands. There needs to be a concerted effort, with the meaningful participation of civil society, to work to resolve these grievances.”

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

Excerpt:

Credit: CIVICUS

By Lysa John
BELGRADE, Apr 11 2019 (IPS)

It is an incredible privilege to welcome you all to the ‘International Civil Society Week’. I am going to remind us of the reasons that make it so important for us to be here in Belgrade this week.

This is our 16th global convening of civil leaders and 4th edition of the International Civil Society Week in particular – following on from events held in South Africa, Colombia and Fiji.

Our first World Assembly, as it was known then, was held in Hungary in 1997, and this time we have gathered in the Balkans – and we are very grateful to our peers in Serbia for hosting us.

Serbia currently features on the CIVICUS Monitor’s “Watch List” which draws attention to countries where there are serious and ongoing threats to civic space.

By hosting ICSW 2019 in Serbia, we hope to shine a spotlight on the strengths and challenges of civil society in this region, and find ways to amplify and support their efforts.

Civic freedoms are currently under attack in 111 countries. In other words, over six billion people face serious challenges in the exercise of freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly which are essential to an empowered and enabled civil society.

There is a continuing crisis facing civil society organisations and activists across the world – a global civic space emergency. Our job is to find ways to ensure this does not become the ‘new normal’.

We cannot be the generation that lost the fight to protect civic freedoms and democratic values. We owe the citizens, civic leaders and communities of the future a significantly stronger basis to organise for and achieve their rights.

There aren’t many people in the world who can genuinely claim to wake up every morning thinking about how to make the world a more just, more honest and more compassionate place. And yet, we have close to 1,000 people in this very room who do just that.

With over 900 delegates from 100+ countries gathered here, you can safely expect to meet every major form of civil society that works to defend and promote human rights worldwide – ranging from community groups, social entrepreneurs, academic organizations, campaigning networks, think tanks and foundations — in one place over the next few days.

We have the opportunity to connect lessons and inspirations while we are together here. Yet it is the changes that we will test and activate when we return to our personal and professional spaces that make being here worthwhile.

This could be refreshed strategies to challenge discrimination and exclusion or new ways to demonstrate innovation and accountability as a sector.

Our deliberations must reflect the urgency and intent required to make the changes we need to see in the real world – and in this gathering right here we have exactly the kind of determination and optimism needed to see this through. Thank you for being here – we wish you a truly inspired week!

I cannot end without thanking again our hosts in Serbia, Civic Initiatives and the Balkans Civil Society Network, for their warm and generous hospitality without which we wouldn’t be here.

A special mention is also due to the hosts of the previous ICSW held in Fiji – the Pacific Island NGO Forum – who are also here. Thank you for the lessons and achievements of our last gathering, which has enabled us to be more prepared and more ambitious this year.

Excerpt:

Infringements of press freedom and the targeting of journalists is one of the topics being discussed at the International Civil Society Week (ICSW 2019) - an annual gathering of civil society leaders, activists and engaged citizens taking place in the Serbian capital Apr. 8-12. Courtesy: CIVICUS

By A. D. McKenzie
BELGRADE, Apr 11 2019 (IPS)

“Stay safe. There’s no story worth dying for.”
That’s the message to journalists from Nada Josimovic, programme coordinator of Amsterdam-based media rights organisation Free Press Unlimited.

Most journalists would agree with her. But beyond the threat of physical harm, women reporters and journalists of colour run another risk: being harassed online, with the spouting of sexist and racist venom.

This, of course, happens to rights defenders as well, all over the world. But in the case of women, the harassment is “sexualised … sometimes with threats of rape,” said Josimovic.

“How does one protect oneself?” she asked, during a panel discussion on press freedom at International Civil Society Week (ICSW 2019) – an annual gathering of civil society leaders, activists and engaged citizens taking place in the Serbian capital Apr. 8-12.

Co-hosted by the Johannesburg-based global civil society alliance CIVICUS, the meeting is focusing on a range of issues that include infringements of press freedom and the targeting of journalists.

As the event took place, news surrounding the deaths of media workers continued. On Apr. 11, the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Audrey Azoulay, issued a statement condemning the killing of a sports reporter in the north-western Mexican town of Salvador Alvarado on Mar. 24.

“I condemn the killing of Omar Iván Camacho Mascareño,” stated Azoulay. “I trust the investigation underway will enable the authorities to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice.”

Mascareño, of local radio broadcaster Chavez Radiocast, was found dead with signs of severe head trauma and injuries indicating that he had been beaten to death, according to media reports.
UNESCO issues its “condemnations” on a regular basis, given the frequency of attacks.

The UN agency has the mandate to promote the safety of journalists and does so “through global awareness-raising, capacity building and a range of actions, notably the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity”, according to the organisation.

This includes a module on Combatting Online Abuse: When Journalists and Their Sources are Targeted, but Josimovic and others stress that enough isn’t being done to end the specific harassment of women journalists.

“I think that media outlets don’t have good support systems for this kind of attacks,” she told IPS. “The legal aspect is also complicated.”

Social media companies, for instance, will not reveal the address of the perpetrators when the targeted individual complains, she said. Additionally, there is sometimes a lack of solidarity from editors and colleagues who have never experienced the harassment.

“Because it’s not happening in the real world, people kind of minimise the effect,” she added. “But women in general face more harassment on-line. In every sector, it’s there.”

Anyone who has doubts about this has only to look at some of the reports via the International Women’s Media Foundation, she said.

Rights activists say that broad coalitions were needed to promote the protection of rights and that journalists and human rights advocates need to work together. Courtesy: CIVICUS

Because of the similarity in methods used to attack rights defenders globally, press freedom groups and civil society organisations should increase ways of working together, said some delegates at the ICSW meeting.

Vukasin Petrovic, senior director for programme strategy at Washington DC-based rights monitoring organisation Freedom House, said that broad coalitions were needed to promote the protection of rights.

“Journalists and human rights advocates are the centrepiece of any strategy,” he told IPS. “The protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are in the interests of both.”

Responding to a question about required journalistic “distance” and impartiality, he acknowledged that sometimes the relationship between the media and civil society can become too close.

“We do need transparency and accountability on all sides,” he said. “But building coalitions can make advocacy more powerful.”

For Dragan Sekulovski, executive director of the Association of Journalists of Macedonia – a country that’s “a champion when it comes to wiretapping” – part of the defence of media needs to come from the sector itself.

That includes promoting quality journalism and “leaving this to the audience to judge”, he said. In this way, public opinion may swing in favour of the media, helping to deter attacks and harassment.

“Quality” journalism requires resources, however, and as various media groups point out, the sector has been ravaged over the past years by job losses, low pay, copyright abuses and other ills.

This is compounded by declining public trust – because of a range of factors, including smear campaigns, accusations of purveying “fake news”, journalists’ own behaviour, and, of course, calling media “the enemy of the people” as American President Donald Trump has done.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, many of Trump’s tweets so far as president has “insulted or criticised journalists and outlets, or condemned and denigrated the news media as a whole”.

It has thus become an uphill battle to get some sections of the public to see the importance of journalists’ work, and to engage actively in protecting media freedom, said activists at the ICSW meeting.

“Media organisations need to engage with citizens to make them understand why (citizens) need them,” said Josimovic.

Whether this would stop the attacks and harassment, especially of women journalists, is anyone’s guess. The issue will no doubt be raised again during discussions May 1-3, when the “main celebration” of UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day takes place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Excerpt:

By Susan Wilding
GENEVA, Apr 11 2019 (IPS)

Anti-government protesters invading Serbia’s state-owned television station, demanding that their voices be heard. Journalism bodies writing to the Albanian prime minister over plans to censor online media outlets. A Belgrade corruption-busting reporter forced to flee his house that had been torched; a Montenegrin investigative journalist shot in the leg outside her home.

These are just some of the violations emerging from the western Balkans as a clampdown on media freedom – and civil liberties – undermines Serbia’s and Montenegro’s bids to join the European Union.

It’s little wonder that Serbia tumbled 10 spots to rank 76th on the 2018 Reporters without Borders Press Freedom Index, which states bluntly: “Serbia has become a country where it is unsafe to be a journalist.” Its neighbours fare little better: Albania is in 75th place, Kosovo is ranked 78th and Montenegro is a dismal 103rd.

Smear campaigns against courageous journalists; impunity for those assaulting media players; collusion between politicians and brown-envelope reporters; high levels of concentration of media ownership in a few hands; threats of cripplingly expensive litigation; the chilling effect of self-censorship on reportage. The list of media abuses in the Balkans goes on and on.

Belgrade, Serbia is playing host to International Civil Society Week, running thro Friday April 12, bringing together over 900 delegates to debate solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges. Some of the questions on the agenda will be: What more can we, as civil society, do to ease this stranglehold on free expression? How can we raise our voices to protect individual and media liberties?

Such restrictions on the media are incompatible with participatory democracy, which depends on three fundamental human rights – freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression – which are also protected under international law. Any government that claims to have free and fair elections, and claims to be a democracy, cannot deny its citizens access to information and the right to be heard.

According to findings by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society in 196 countries, states are generally using two types of tactics to restrict civic freedoms, and the crack down on media freedoms is no exception.

The first is legal: imposing or enforcing laws that restrict democratic freedoms and criminalise free speech. For example, this includes bringing trumped-up judicial charges against journalists or media houses, thereby diverting energy and resources from watchdog journalism.

The second type comes in the form of extrajudicial means and are even more contemptible: including intimidating the media into submission through carefully coordinated smear campaigns and public vilification, and sometimes through physical intimidation and outright repression.

While such states may make an elaborate show of using (or abusing) the laws of the land to rein in the media, such censorship is clearly a perverse parody of democracy – an expression of a growing trend in which the ‘rule by law’ replaces the rule of law.

Sometimes these attacks on media are coming from “strongmen” leaders with the ambition of concentrating power and eliminating any checks and balances. In other instances, we see these kinds of restrictions imposed by governments that feel threatened and see media clampdowns as another way to hold onto power.

A weakened state or leaders who came to power through dubious means or with a small majority are likely to mute the civic space to cling to power. It may therefore, not be surprising that it’s happening in the Balkans, given the area’s fraught political history.

When popular dissent swells against unpopular policies and actions, a vulnerable state’s first target is the media, because of their potential role in unseating power. It is also something we see as a classic copy-and-paste tactic: questionable leaders see their regional neighbours getting away with it, with few if any repercussions, and follow suit.

Even the online space – the ultimate democratic arena of the 21st century, where the gladiatorial thrust and parry of views is essential to robust debate – is not being spared in this battle to seize ideological control of the marketplace of ideas.

Some countries have already shown that it’s entirely possible to shut down or control social media platforms, denying citizens their fundamental right to participate in debate and in policymaking.

The reasons that States give for silencing media vary but often include similar statements such as journalists are writing “defamatory” articles or disseminating “fake news”. Often, they maintain, the reportage is “unpatriotic”, “goes against our culture or values” or “does not advance our nationalist agenda”.

With the restrictions on media freedoms increasing in the Balkans, we should be highlighting the situation and sharing tried and tested strategies for pushing back and opening the space for a free and independent media.

We should be concerned that the world so easily shifted its attention away from the region after the terrible conflict that claimed so many lives 20 years ago. Why did we not linger a while to monitor the aftermath? Do we turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, as is the case in China and elsewhere, as long as there is peace, development and economic prosperity?

Excerpt:

Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders next report will focus on impunity, as only about 5 percent of attacks on rights defenders have been investigated and the perpetrators “brought to justice”. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

By A. D. McKenzie
BELGRADE, Apr 10 2019 (IPS)

The murder of Brazilian politician and human rights activist Marielle Franco just over a year ago and attacks on other rights activists around the world have galvanised civil society organisations, with the United Nations heightening its own strategy to protect rights defenders.
However, some countries aren’t interested in cooperating with civil society or international governmental bodies and even actively engage in smear campaigns against rights advocates.

“An increasing number of states have now refused to cooperate with the UN,” said Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

“They don’t want to invite any more special rapporteurs to visit the countries or to produce reports,” he told journalists at a press briefing during International Civil Society Week (ICSW 2019), an annual gathering of civil society leaders, activists and citizens taking place in the Serbian capital this week, Apr. 8-12.

The meeting – co-hosted by the Johannesburg-based global civil society alliance CIVICUS – has brought together more than 850 delegates who are focusing on issues ranging from “the crackdown on media freedom to emergency assistance for NGOs under attack”. It is also addressing the “power” of solidarity alongside greater accountability.

Forst said he was attending the event to learn from the participants. His next report, to be presented during the UN General Assembly in the fall, will focus on impunity, as only about 5 percent of attacks on rights defenders have been investigated and the perpetrators “brought to justice”, he told journalists.

A growing problem in protecting rights defenders is the way in which some states try to defame activists, Forst said. In regions from Europe to Latin America, there are on-going campaigns to discredit rights advocates, and public opinion can be influenced by the derogatory terminology.
“These campaigns are dangerous for defenders,” he said. “They are called ‘enemies of the state’, they are called ‘promoters of western values’, they are (said to be) ‘against development’.”

In some countries, activists are also accused of having links to terrorism and of opposing progress when they try to block projects that are disastrous for the environment or for indigenous peoples.

“What is also a matter of concern for me is that these campaigns are led by politicians, by political actors, prime ministers, ministers of foreign affairs, ministers of defence,” Forst added.

He said the Belgrade ICSW meeting was important for activists to see that what is happening in their home country or region may also be taking place elsewhere, so that they can try to build bridges and strengthen links.

The meeting has in fact highlighted similarities in methods of repression around the world – methods that include not only physical attacks, but surveillance, travel bans, on-line harassment and the use of government structures and legislation to try to suppress freedoms.

Even as the ICSW meeting takes place, rights organisations elsewhere have been issuing alarms about breaches of civic and media rights. Separately from the event in Belgrade, rights organisation PEN America on Apr. 9 warned that the “Trump administration’s targeting of journalists has reached a new level”.

The group pointed to reports from the U.S.-Mexico border (and leaked documents from a Department of Homeland Security whistle-blower) indicating that “U.S. government agencies have been tracking and monitoring over 50 individuals, mostly journalists and immigration advocates, as they report on the humanitarian situation” at the U.S. southern border.

Government entities have reportedly participated in the “tracking and monitoring of these journalists, including the creation of a U.S. government database containing sensitive personal information”, PEN America said. The group called the database “a shocking and unwarranted violation of journalists’ First Amendment rights” and “an appalling violation of press freedom”.

In France, meanwhile, the national branch of Amnesty International criticised a French “anti-riot” law that could threaten freedom of assembly and expression. The law, adopted by parliament, would allow police to systematically search protestors, and, despite certain assurances, it “remains a serious infringement on public freedom and the balance of power”, Amnesty France stated Apr. 9.

The law comes as France’s Gilets Jaunes (or Yellow Vests) continue their protests, with thousands marching on Apr. 6 in Paris and other cities for the 21st weekend in a row. Certain lawmakers say the legislation is necessary to prevent further destruction of property and life-threatening fires started by protestors during some of the demonstrations.

But France also uses other legislation “to target those defenders who are trying to help and rescue migrants coming to Europe via the Mediterranean sea,” said Forst, who is French.
“We’re seeing more and more the criminalisation of (rights) defenders”, through the use of the law, he said.

In Serbia, anti-government demonstrators are set to intensify their actions Apr. 13 — the day after ICSW 2019 ends — with what promises to be the biggest gathering since protests began last December.

Protestors are calling for free and fair elections and greater media freedom. (Last month some forced their way into the offices of Serbia’s state-run television network, to show dissatisfaction with what they called one-sided reporting.)

At the opening ceremony of ICSW, Serbian activists slammed President Aleksandar Vučić for repressive policies, often without naming him, and some called for protection of the media.

“We will stand up for freedom of journalists… the freedom not to be threatened in any way,” said Maja Stojanovic, of Serbian organisation Civic Initiatives, a co-host of the meeting.

Ahead of ICSW, Serbia was added to a watchlist of “nations where civic freedoms are under serious threat”. The watchlist – released by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society across the globe – said Serbian authorities have “orchestrated a smear campaign against demonstrators, labelling government opponents as ‘paid’ activists working against Serbian interests”.

The confused and disquieting developments in many countries further highlight the need to find cross-border solutions and to create links between rights defenders, Forst said.

The European Union, for instance, has guidelines for embassies of member states abroad on “how to protect rights defenders”, and funding is available for embassies to relocate individuals at risk, Forst told reporters. In addition, a network of shelter cities exists (the number of these is growing with continued attacks).

But it is difficult to relocate at-risk female activists who may have children, and here, too, there is often lack of cooperation or agreement on asylum requests.

While some countries can effectively help rights defenders in far-off regions, they seem powerless when it comes to their own neighbours.

Still, defenders are becoming “more efficient” in forming local, national and international networks, Forst said. “It is a battle … solidarity is important.”

He said the good news is that some countries that were “blocked in the past” are now granting access to international bodies to help protect defenders and to end impunity.

In contrast to states like the Philippines that are dangerous for rights defenders and don’t wish to “do anything to solve the problem”, other countries “like Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Brazil now – maybe – do recognise, because of the number of killings … that they need to solve the problem,” Forst added.

In Brazil, meanwhile, activists and others are still asking: who killed Marielle Franco?

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 10 2019 (IPS)

A former UN Secretary-General, the late Kofi Annan, once described civil society organizations (CSOs), as “the world’s new superpower” – perhaps ranking behind the US and the former Soviet Union.

But that political glory has continued to diminish over the years– and more so — against the current backdrop of repressive regimes, hard right nationalist governments and far right extremist groups.

Perhaps the most virulent attacks on the civic space of CSOs—also known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — are largely on their attempts to provide protection and security to migrants and refugees in the “dangerous crossings,” from North Africa across the Mediterranean Sea and the Mexico/US border.

“There are now serious restrictions in civic space on every continent,” says the annual State of Civil Society Report 2019, released last week by the Johannesburg-based CIVICUS.

And it singles out the Italian government’s decision to impose a hefty fine on one of the world’s best-known humanitarian organisations, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while also freezing their assets, impounding their rescue vessel and investigating their staff for human trafficking…in retaliation for their efforts to save refugees from drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.

There were also instances of civil society activists being charged, tried and convicted in the United States for providing water supplies for migrants crossing the deadly Sonoran desert on the US/Mexico border.

As these attacks continue, international institutions are “struggling” to help shore up these NGOs because these institutions, including the United Nations, are “hamstrung by the interests and alliances of powerful states.”

The report points out these institutions did little to respond to the great challenges of the day– failing to fight overwhelming inequality and also were largely silent on human rights abuses of states such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan while letting down the people of Syria and the Rohingyas of Myanmar, among many others.

Still, both the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet and the Geneva based Human Rights Council (and its 38 human rights experts – officially called Special Rapporteurs) – have taken the lead in singling out abuses worldwide.

In early March, Bachelet expressed concern about the possible approval by the Guatemalan Congress of a bill amending the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations for Development—a move aimed at limiting the work of human rights defenders and civil society in general.

The draft bill included requirements and administrative controls for national and international NGOs that in practice could be applied in a discretionary or arbitrary manner to limit the exercise of CSOs.

“I regret that Congress has continued with the process of approving this amendment despite its inconsistencies with international human rights standards, and despite the technical advice provided by my Office, and serious concerns expressed by UN independent experts and civil society,” Bachelet said.

The draft bill narrows the definition of NGOs, limiting their scope in a way that may constrain the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression.

To obtain authorizations, NGOs would need to go through a complex registration process with several different state institutions, and the criteria for granting, rejecting or revoking those authorizations are not specified in the bill, according to the office of the High Commissioner.

Asked if there is a role either for the United Nations or its member states to protect CSOs under attack, Mandeep Tiwana, Chief Programmes Officer at CIVICUS,told IPS the UN is making some efforts to put the issues of attacks on CSOs and activists in the spotlight.

In December last year, he said, the President of the UN General Assembly, in a symbolic event, awarded the UN human rights prize to three civil society activists and an organisation dedicated to the protection of human rights defenders.

Recently, on March 21, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a first-of-its- kind resolution on the protection of environmental human rights defenders, said Tiwana.

The UN Secretary General has a designated senior official to lead efforts within the UN system to address intimidation and reprisals against those cooperating with the UN system.

And, he said, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Women regularly champion the work of CSOs and women human rights defenders respectively.

“However, in light of the growing restrictions on civic space, around the world, and even at the UN itself, these efforts are often not enough,” complained Tiwana.

This is in part because the UN itself is also under pressure from (undemocratic) governments that restrict civil society at home, and wish to do so at the UN as well.

He said the CIVICUS Monitor, a participatory platform that measures civic freedoms finds that only 4% of the world’s population live in countries where the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly are adequately protected.

These are necessary for a healthy and enabled civil society and enshrined in international law.

“Our 2019 State of Civil Society Report points out, that the UN is hamstrung by the actions of powerful states that refuse to play by the rules including the US, China and Russia”.

Tiwana said a number of rights repressing states are joining international bodies.

In 2018, for example, Bahrain, Bangladesh and Eritrea, joined the UN Human Rights Council.

And over 60% of the UNHRC members are states with serious civic space restrictions that don’t respect civil society rights. In doing so, they are making decisive action less likely.

Second, states are withdrawing from international institutions and agreements, with the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on Climate and undermining UN resolutions on Palestine and the Occupied Territories.

Philippines has pulled out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a bid to avoid international accountability for widespread human rights violations including attacks on civil society.

In 2018, the new Global Compact for Migration also saw a string of states with hardline migration policies pull out between the agreement of the deal and its signing.

Third, rogue leaders are bringing their styles of personal rule into international affairs, ignoring existing institutions, agreements and norms, acting as unilateral strongmen or striking bilateral deals with other hardmen, undermining multilateralism and making it harder to scrutinise their actions, Tiwana noted.

Potentially everything seems up for negotiation and nothing can be assured at the international level, even the 70-year-old international human rights norms that underpin civil society action, he warned.

The writer can be contacted at thalifeen@ips.org

Excerpt:

By Josef Benedict
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Apr 9 2019 (IPS)

Around the globe, cyberspace has become the new battleground in the fight for the heart and soul of democracy. And Southeast Asia is fast becoming one of the global hotspots where the screws are being tightened on freedom of expression online.

Governments across the region have been passing legislation ostensibly aimed at regulating online space, often in the name of national security or to preserve public morality. But the laws mask a more insidious intention: the stifling of dissent and the silencing of views that deviate from the state-ordained line.

The trend of online restrictions is a continuation of the long-running campaign of free speech and media freedom restrictions that many states have been exercising offline. The effect of the legislation is to create a climate of intimidation and self-censorship in a space – social media – that has proven an effective tool in awareness-raising and mobilisation around rights.

It comes as no surprise that such tools of repression are on the rise in authoritarian-leaning countries such as Vietnam and Thailand – the former a one-party state, the latter ruled for the last five years by a military junta – in a bid to try and influence and control the popular narrative.

In Thailand, for example, a controversial cyberlaw was passed in February allowing the state to access anyone’s personal or business information, and to seize and hold any computers or electronic devices suspected of being used to commit cybercrimes.

No provision has been made for citizens to appeal such seizures. The purported justification is to prevent government websites and databases from being hacked, but the reality is that this law infringes on people’s right to privacy.

What makes it even worse is that this cyberlaw has not come out of nowhere – it builds on the existing Computer Crimes Act in Thailand, a draconian piece of legislation under which hundreds of activists have been prosecuted since the 2014 military coup for exercising their right to free speech online.

It is one thing to outlaw hate speech, expressed online or offline, that could potentially incite violence or discord. It is quite another when all elements of daily life and business are being policed and censored by an omnipotent Big Brother-like system, serving to chill free expression through a climate of fear.

But in Southeast Asia, such repressive laws are proliferating. Last year, Vietnamese legislators approved a cybersecurity law that tightens control of the internet.

Having come into effect in January amid widespread protests that saw demonstrators being beaten and arrested last year, it gives the government sweeping powers to censor social media posts and the authority to force global technology companies operating in the country to hand over users’ data, which they have to store locally.

Many of these laws are vaguely worded, are overbroad in their scope and are widely open to interpretation – and abuse.

Vietnam’s new law, by way of example, stipulates that it is a crime to post material online that “offends the nation, the national flag, the national emblem, the national anthem, great people, leaders, notable people and national heroes”.

Elsewhere, in states such as Malaysia and Indonesia with multiparty democratic systems of government, the iron fist regulating online activity is often more subtle but no less alarming.

In both countries, laws governing the digital space seem intent on silencing criticism and dissent. In Malaysia, lawyer and activist Fadiah Nadwa Fikri was investigated under the the Communications and Multimedia Act for an article she wrote online that some perceived as being disrespectful to the country’s monarchy.

In Indonesia, activist and human rights defender Robertus Robet was detained for violating the Law on Electronic Information and Transactions after a video of him criticising the military was posted on social media platforms.

Further complicating matters in the region is when a government institutes laws that forbid what it construes as blasphemy or religious defamation. This turns the state into the self-styled arbiter of public morality and raises the spectre of modern-day witch hunts.

It’s becoming increasingly common for people who are peacefully exercising their freedom of speech on social media platforms across the region to be arrested, prosecuted and punished for criticising religion or “state ideology” – or even, in some cases, for promoting minority or LGBTIQ+ rights.

Amid the physical assaults, intimidation and threats of punitive action for not toeing the official line, there is a faint glimmer of hope: citizens and civil society in the region are railing against the curtailing of their online freedoms, and have made some significant gains.

The Thai Netizen Network managed to force some important amendments to the new cyberlaw before it was passed, in Indonesia a Constitutional Court legal challenge also led to progressive revisions to the restrictive legislation, and in Malaysia, civil society is lobbying the new government for similar amendments.

While Southeast Asia is certainly not alone when it comes to statutory moves to silence critics and quash online dissent in the name of national stability and security – similar censorship is being mulled or rolled out in China, Russia, in some European and African countries, and even the United States – the training and installing of actual “cyberpolice” in places such as Vietnam cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Media and citizens are being effectively gagged from having legitimate conversations through this social policing, potentially leading to increasing self-censorship, a stunting of vigorous intellectual debate and weakening of state accountability.

In the region and beyond, the crisis is of serious concern to human rights defenders and organisations, who see the grave implications for democracies. The issue is a key focus for more than 800 civil society leaders and activists seeking sustainable solutions at International Civil Society Week (ICSW), the largest global civil society gathering currently underway in Belgrade, Serbia.

It’s encouraging that David Kaye, the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, has spoken out strongly against such cyberlaws and called on states to repeal any legislation that criminalises or unduly restricts expression online.

But it is also incumbent on all of us as civil society to deepen our national and international advocacy efforts in this area.

Civil society activists and rights defenders cannot afford to ease up on the pressure, as the quality of democracy is taking a serious hit due, ironically, to the sustained squeezing of the very space that holds such rich potential to deepen democracy – the digital realm.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 8 2019 (IPS)

As it paves a destructive path against international institutions and multilateralism, the Trump administration is slowly but steadily undermining the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.

The US has already withdrawn both from the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris while, at the same time, it has either cut off, or drastically reduced, funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and for UN peacekeeping operations (by a hefty $500 million).

The most recent attack has been directed at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague which was planning to investigate war crimes committed in Afghanistan, focusing both on the Taliban and US soldiers.

The US action to revoke the visa of Fatou Bensouda, Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, has not only triggered protests from academics and from human rights and civil society organizations (CSOs) but also left several lingering questions unanswered.

When the United Nations decided to locate its secretariat in the city of New York, the United States, as host nation, signed a “headquarters agreement” back in 1947 ensuring diplomatic immunity to foreign diplomats and pledging to facilitate the day-to-day activities of the world body– without any hindrance.

So, is the revocation of the visa a violation of the 1947 US- UN headquarters agreement? Or has the US a right to impose proposed sanctions on ICC judges when it is not even a member of the ICC?

And is the revocation of the visa the shape of things to come, with political leaders from countries such as Iran, Venezuela and Cuba– blacklisted by the Trump administration– being refused admission when they are due in New York next September for the annual General Assembly sessions?

The protests against the US decision have come from several CSOs, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) and the World Federalist Movement- Institute for Global Policy (WFM/IGP).

The letter from the three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) states “the purpose of the visa restrictions is to block and deter legitimate criminal investigation into serious crimes under international law”.

“Not only might they have a chilling effect on ICC personnel and others advocating for accountability, but they will set a dangerous precedent with serious implications on the overall fight for impunity, especially the right of victims and their legal representatives to seek justice and reparations without fear of retaliation.”

Dr. Tawanda Hondora, Executive Director of WFM-IGP, told IPS the Trump administration has been consistent in its reckless application of retrogressive policies that undermine a rules-based international order.

He said its policies are seriously damaging the post-WWII system of international law and practice, and have exponentially increased the risk of armed conflict in a world in which many more states now possess weapons of mass destruction.

“The revocation by the US of Fatou Bensouda’s visa violates Article IV of the UN-US headquarters agreement”.

There is no question that the US is applying its immigration laws with the objective of improperly influencing the ICC Prosecutor’s investigations into crimes committed by all parties to the conflict in Afghanistan, he argued.

“It is wholly unacceptable that this administration is using Bensouda’s personal situation to coerce her to breach her mandate under the Rome Statute and to the UN Security Council,” he declared.

Dr Martin S. Edwards, Associate Professor of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University in the US, told IPS both civil society and other countries are right to be critical here.

“I would hope that this is solely intended to make life difficult for Bensouda and not part of a more general trend of denying visas for General Assembly visits”.

However, said Dr Edwards, there is little about this administration and its mix of insecurity and unwarranted bluster that should surprise anyone.

“I would think that this could lead to similar attempts to deny visas for General Assembly visits” He pointed out that the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro could be a natural target here as an extension of diplomatic efforts to isolate him.

It would be ironic that a President that frames his accomplishment as a reassertion of American power would be afraid of what he would say from the podium, said Dr Edwards.

But the hallmark of this US Presidency has been a singular focus on controlling perceptions and information, rather than confidently relying on our diplomatic prowess to produce results.

Historically, the US has grumbled about leaders coming to New York (denying Arafat was legally easier than a Head of State), but one can imagine this White House pushing the envelope here, since it’s perfect “red meat” for the President’s base, he added.

The legal basis for doing this is incredibly thin, based on a false reading of Section 6 of the Headquarters Agreement, which grants leaders a right to access to the UN, and the US would surely lose in arbitration, Dr Edwards noted.

Briefing reporters on March 15, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said since 1998, the United States has declined to join the ICC because of its broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers and the threat it poses to American national sovereignty.

“We are determined to protect the American and allied military and civilian personnel from living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation. We feared that the court could eventually pursue politically motivated prosecutions of Americans, and our fears were warranted,” he declared.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, told IPS the US is not only, not a party to the Statute of the ICC, but it also inserted Article 98 of the Statute during its negotiations excluding US nationals from its jurisdiction.

Subsequently, the US formally advised the UN Secretary-General that it will not ratify the Statute thereby exempting it from any obligations arising from signature.

Thus, the US has emphatically signalled its position with regard to the Statute of the ICC. Therefore, denying a visa to the prosecutor only underlines its consistent opposition to the Statute, said Dr Kohona a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations.

While one could raise one’s eye brows about the US action, said Dr Kohona, one is reminded again that we still live in a world where the powerful dictate the terms and modify the rules to suit their convenience, despite the dreams of those idealists who had hoped to create a world governed by a transparent and predictable framework of rules equally applicable to all.

“Unfortunately, the rules, especially those relating to human rights and humanitarian affairs, tend to be applied with vigour only to the weak and the meek and not to the powerful. This is the reality of the world that we inhabit,” he noted.

Dr Edwards of Seton Hall University said: “As for the ICC, Bensouda is caught between a need to investigate non-African cases to signal her independence, but picking the biggest fight imaginable in the process”.

This does fit a general US pattern of using ICC as a tool against other countries while exempting itself from investigation in the process, so in one sense it is not surprising.

“The bigger danger for the ICC is that this might set a precedent for other countries to try to tamper with its work in similar ways moving forward,” he declared.

Dr Hondora of WFM-IGP called on the United Kingdom and France – members states to UN Security Council (UNSC) and the Rome Statute – to initiate a debate in the UNSC regarding the lawfulness and propriety of the US decision to revoke Bensouda’s visa in the peculiar circumstances of this case.

He said WFM-IGP calls on the UN General Assembly to object to the revocation of Bensouda’s US visa as it sets a precedence that will see representatives of governments and international bodies that different US administrations object to being personally targeted with punitive personal US sanctions with the intention of prejudicing how they discharge their roles and responsibilities under key treaties.

WFM-IGP also calls on the General Assembly to seek an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the lawfulness – under the US-UN Hosting Agreement – of the US decision revoking Bensouda’s visa to the US in retaliation to a decision taken by the Office of the Prosecutor to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

Excerpt:

Representatives said that civil society and concerned citizens worldwide have started to respond with “renewed determination” to the unprecedented challenges facing the world, and that this resolve will be in the spotlight during International Civil Society Week (ICSW). Pictured here is a protest by France’s Gilets Jaunes (or Yellow Vests) from earlier this year. Credit: Olivier Ortelpa/CC By 2.0

By A. D. McKenzie
PARIS, Apr 7 2019 (IPS)

Amid rising attacks on rights campaigners, and mass protests in countries such as France and Serbia, civil society groups are urging governments to ensure the protection of “democratic values” and freedom of expression.

In Belgrade, some 850 human rights campaigners, civil society leaders and engaged citizens will meet Apr. 8 to 12 for the annual International Civil Society Week (ICSW) – a gathering co-hosted by the Johannesburg-based global civil society alliance CIVICUS and Serbian association Civic Initiatives, with the support of the Balkans Civil Society Development Network.

Under the theme, “The Power of Togetherness”, ICSW 2019 “seeks to generate deep conversations among civil society leaders, social justice advocates, development practitioners, members of the philanthropic community, diplomats and others on emerging global challenges and how civil society should be responding to these,” said Mandeep Tiwana, CIVICUS’ chief programmes officer.

“Defence of democratic values, civic space and participation, along with citizen action, will be among the topics of discussion,” he told IPS in an email interview while en route to Belgrade.

“Our message to governments is that the right to peaceful protest is a basic human right enshrined in constitutional and international law. Governments have an inherent responsibility to enable the right to peaceful protest as an integral element of the defence of democracy,” he added.

The ICSW meeting comes at a time when human-rights organisations, campaigners and media workers in many regions have experienced growing repression, including arrests, beatings and killings that have shocked and outraged international observers.

“In country after country, democracy is under attack, with populist and right-wing movements gaining ground and democratic regression being witnessed even in countries historically considered bastions of democracy,” CIVICUS says.

“Activists, journalists and people who speak out against growing restrictions are persecuted. A historic rise of populist leaders continues to erode fundamental freedoms, heightening political polarisation and sowing division,” the group adds.

Representatives said that civil society and concerned citizens worldwide have started to respond with “renewed determination” to the unprecedented challenges facing the world, and that this resolve will be in the spotlight during ICSW, which includes a large youth participation.

“This year’s event in Serbia comes at a critical and opportune time for civil society and the world’s citizens to realise the power of unified, collective action to challenge a global trend that threatens our fundamental freedoms,” said Lysa John, CIVICUS’ Secretary General.

The discussions will take place against a backdrop of unrest in various countries: massive public demonstrations have been continuing in Serbia, for instance, while France’s Gilets Jaunes (or Yellow Vests) marched again on Apr. 6 in Paris and other cities for the 21st weekend in a row.

This latest French strife began last November in response to fuel price increases, and the demonstrators say they won’t give up until their demands are met for a restructuring of French society so that the “elite” aren’t always in charge.

During earlier marches, rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticised the French police for using “excessive force” and “heavy-handed” crowd control and anti-riot measures.

But some protestors have also participated in violence, looting and the targeting of media professionals, as reporters covering the marches have come under attack.

Media workers, in fact, often find themselves between a rock and a hard place, caught amongst the security forces and protestors as they try to report on turbulent events. CIVICUS said that the role of the media and their relationship with civil society will be a key topic of discussion at ICSW, alongside the focus on protecting rights campaigners.

“CIVICUS is working in several ways to stop attacks on members of the media and civil society activists targeted for exposing rights violations or speaking truth to power,” Tiwana said. “We engage with a broad range of civil society organisations that support press freedom using several approaches ranging from in-depth participatory research and analysis to raising awareness of attacks on the media, strategic coalition building, and directly engaging decision-makers at the national and international levels.”

He told IPS that joint efforts had contributed to the “release of journalists and the scrapping of repressive bills that restrict media freedoms” in some instance, while in others the efforts had “helped put serious  violations of media freedoms on the UN’s radar through its various human rights mechanisms”.

The choice of Serbia’s capital as the 2019 ICSW venue will draw attention to current protests and also recall the bloody recent history of the Balkans, highlighting the need for international vigilance in protecting rights, according to civil society groups.

“During the 1990s, authoritarian regimes produced conflicts, severe human rights violations and genocide. Today, as we approach European Union membership, internal and international independent monitoring mechanisms show shrinking media freedoms, a lack of separation of power and rule of law, and deterioration of freedom of elections,” stated Maja Stojanovic, of Civic Initiatives.

“This region, and particularly Serbia, demonstrates that changing laws, strategies or governments offers no guarantees – democracy does not exist if it is not built constantly. By hosting this year’s event in Belgrade, we will convene and send messages rooted in local circumstances and, in the same time, fully reflecting global challenges,” she said.

Ahead of the meeting, Serbia and four other countries have been added to a global watchlist of countries that have seen an “escalation in serious threats to fundamental freedoms in recent weeks and months”, according to CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society across the world.

Citizens of all five countries (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Venezuela are the others) are experiencing increasing rights violations that “include killings, attacks on protesters, media restrictions and arbitrary detentions of human rights defenders”.

“It is deeply concerning to see escalated threats to basic rights in these countries,” said Marianna Belalba Barreto, CIVICUS’ Civic Space Research Lead.

“It is critical that these five governments wake up to their failure to respect international law and take swift action to respect their citizens’ most basic freedoms in a democratic society,” Belalba said.

CIVICUS is also calling upon “neighbouring states and international bodies to put pressure on these countries to end the repression”.

Excerpt:

By Josef Benedict
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Apr 5 2019 (IPS)

When the one-year anniversary of Malaysia’s historic presidential election outcome rolls around in early May, the wave of euphoria that followed it will be all but a wistful memory.

The surprise outcome that ended 61 years of interrupted rule by the Barisan Nasional coalition party, brought with it fresh hope that winning Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope) party would bring the “New Malaysia” – as it became known – the positive change many yearned for.

So, why the gloomy mood now? One reason is Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s failure to make good on many of his promises around political and institutional reforms.

There were some early encouraging policy shifts initially but since then progress has been extremely slow. Another reason, for many in Southeast Asia’s most ethnically and religiously diverse nation, is the worrying rise of religious and ethnic intolerance.

Signs of this trend of intolerance have been emerging for a few years now but have become more prominent as of pro-Malay rights groups and Malay based political parties – now in the opposition – have become more vocal about perceived threats to their interests.

The Malays – who almost all are Muslim- are the country’s largest ethnic group comprising about 60% of the population.

In December, Mahathir had to drop his pledge to ratify a UN treaty on racial discrimination amid intense pressure – from these groups who claimed it would jeopardise affirmative action policies benefitting them.

These right-wing groups – such as Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) – over the years have also mobilized again attempts to introduce laws and policies for gender equality and demonised minorities like Shia’ Muslims as well as LGBT people.

Human rights defenders and civil society groups in Malaysia who have defended these rights have often faced intimidation and threats from these groups.

In Southeast Asia – and the world, for that matter – Malaysia is not alone. Group-based intolerance and anti-rights activism is a global trend that’s growing along with the power of right-wing populism that has ushered in regressive leaders from the US to Brazil to The Philippines.

The State of Civil Society 2019, a newly-released annual report on threats to civil society globally over the past year, by civil society alliance, CIVICUS, shows that minority groups are being vilified by rightwing populist politicians, anti-rights groups and citizens who are being persuaded to blame those who have the fewest rights for their understandable concerns about insecurity, inequality, poverty and isolation from power.

Rohingya Refugees. Credit: UNFPA Bangladesh/Naymuzzaman Prince

While the state traditionally has had a monopoly on repression in Southeast Asia, we are seeing anti-rights groups actively coming to the fore to target minority groups in a number of countries in the region.

Beyond their campaigns to marginalize minorities, these groups have also have been able to influence the state to become more conservative.

In Indonesia, we saw this playing out a few years ago with hardline Islamist groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) – who have demanded that Muslim leaders formally adopt sharia law and label non-Muslims as “infidels” – mobilizing against the Christian former mayor of the capital city, Jakarta.

Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama was accused of insulting Islam after had accused his opponents of using a Quranic verse that suggests Muslims should not choose non-Muslims as leaders in order to trick people into voting against him.

Following mass protests and pressure from these hardline groups, Ahok was charged and convicted for blasphemy. These dynamics seems to have influenced Indonesia’s upcoming elections this month with incumbent president Joko Widodo’s choice of a conservative Muslim cleric as his running mate, some say for one purpose: to split the conservative Muslim vote.

Of course, by far, the biggest and most extreme flashpoint of religious and ethnic intolerance and persecution in the region has been in the nation of Myanmar. While the Muslim minority, particular the Rohingya, have faced discrimination for years, it escalated with the military-backed government’s passing of a raft of so-called race and religion laws ahead of the 2015 elections.

These laws were lobbied for by Ashin Wirathu, vitriolic monk and leader of the ultra-nationalist Buddhist group, Association for Protection of Race and Religion (Ma Ba Tha), which has links to the state.

Since then we have seen the violent persecution and displacement of tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state. Hardline Buddhists have continued to use Facebook to fuel hate speech.

Despite the influence of these anti-rights groups, civil society in Southeast Asia is pushing back. In Malaysia, human rights activists are leveraging media to counter the divisive ethic and religious rhetoric of right-wing groups and to call for a new national narrative which focuses on inclusion and diversity.

In Indonesia, civil society groups are working closely with youth and moderate Islamic organisations such as Nadhatul Ulama – which has around 90 million members – to challenge intolerance and organize inter-faith dialogues while in Myanmar civil society has called out Facebook for failing to address hate speech that incites violence.

These kinds of strategies – and other effective solutions to countering the widespread rise in the power of anti-rights groups and their impact on democracy in the region and internationally – will be high on the agenda when more than 900 civil society leaders and activists from around the globe meeting in Belgrade next week for International Civil Society Week, the world’s largest civil society gathering.

While the growing threats are increasingly worrying, social movements and civil society organisations equally are mobilizing to rise to the challenge.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 4 2019 (IPS)

Faced with an uneven battle against right wing nationalist governments, repressive regimes and extremist groups, scores of civil society organizations (CSOs) are gearing themselves to fight back.

Expressing grave concern over a widespread crackdown on activists, 118 leading CSOs, scholars and women’s groups – focusing largely on the rights of women in predominantly Muslim countries– joined hands last week to co-sign a letter of protest to 48 leaders of Muslim-majority countries.

The letter seeks support for equality of women, condemns the torture of women human rights defenders and calls for the immediate release of those detained in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Spearheaded by Equality Now and Musawah, the letter says they are particularly alarmed at the imprisonment in Saudi Arabia of numerous women’s rights activists, including Loujain Al-Hathloul, Hatoon Al-Fassi, Aziza Al-Yousef, Eman Al-Nafjan, Nouf Abdelaziz, Samar Badawi, Nassima Al-Sadah, Amal Al-Harbi, and Shadan Al-Anezi.

The Saudi government has accused the women of “coordinated activities to undermine the security, stability and natural unity of the kingdom.”

According to Saudi law, the women could face up to 20 years in prison or sentenced to death.

The recipients of the letter include 48 presidents, reigning monarchs and heads of government of Iraq, Chad, Kuwait, Bahrain, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran, Maldives, Niger, Tunisia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, among others.

The letter says: “We write as over 100 women’s rights and human rights organizations and activists from the Muslim world, who are deeply concerned over the crack down on women’s rights activists in some countries”.

“We respectfully request leaders of the Muslim world to raise their voices to support equality for women, to recognize the critical role that women’s rights defenders play in this regard, and to condemn the imprisonment and torture of women human rights defenders.”

The activists say they are also “extremely troubled by the egregious treatment of women’s rights activists in Iran, including internationally renowned lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has reportedly been sentenced to 38 years in prison and 148 lashes, and Narges Mohammadi, sentenced in 2016 to 16 years in prison”.

The 118 activists who signed the letter are from CSOs in Algeria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, India, Canada, Pakistan, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Mali and Somalia, among others.

The role of CSOs in fighting back repression and human rights violations will be one of the primary issues on the agenda of the International Civil Society Week (ICSW), scheduled to take place in Belgrade, April 8-12.

The theme of this year’s ICSW is “The Power of Togetherness” focusing on harnessing collective action to respond to rights restrictions and rightwing globalism.

Yasmeen Hassan, Global Director of Equality Now, a CSO which advocates the protection and promotion of the human rights of women and girls worldwide, said: “It is disheartening to see how low down the rank Muslim countries come in the UN’s global Gender Inequality Index”

She said the arrests, imprisonment and alleged torture of women’s rights activists in Iran and Saudi Arabia should be condemned by all Muslim States.

“We cannot achieve peace, prosperity, and progress without committing to equality for women and girls, and taking active steps to make this a reality,” declared Hassan.

Zainah Anwar, Executive Director of Musawah, a global movement for equality and justice in the Muslim world, said: “It is high time Muslim leaders speak out about equality and justice being Islamic values, support women’s rights groups in their countries, and take action to end laws, policies and practices made in the name of Islam that continue to discriminate against women until today.”

If Muslim countries had been true to the teachings of Islam that granted women rights considered revolutionary 1,400 years ago, she said, the Muslim world today would be at the forefront of the women’s movement, instead of at the bottom of all gender equality surveys.

Asked for an update, Tara Carey of Equality Now, told IPS: “It is extremely disappointing that the women’s rights activists still detained in Saudi Arabia have not been freed from prison following Wednesday’s court hearing”

“We call for their immediate, unconditional release, with all charges against them dropped, and for the Saudi authorities to ensure an impartial and independent investigation into allegations of torture.

She said defending women’s rights is not a crime and these women should never have been imprisoned in the first place.

Meanwhile, addressing the Human Rights Council in Geneva last September, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said the recent crackdown on peaceful human rights defenders, especially defenders of women’s equality and women’s rights, in Saudi Arabia was “deeply disturbing”.

“Samar Badawi and Nassima Al-Sadah were, according to our sources, arrested on 30 July 2018 and have been held incommunicado since then.”

The prosecutor’s recommendation of the death penalty for Israa al-Ghomgham, reportedly on charges related to participation in protests, is of serious concern.

“These and other arbitrary arrests of peaceful activists for the collective good sharply contradict the spirit of the country’s proclaimed new reforms. We call on the authorities to release all individuals detained for exercising their fundamental freedoms,” she warned, as she singled out more than 45 countries for human rights violations.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

Excerpt:

By Lysa John
JOHANNESBURG, Apr 2 2019 (IPS)

“I never thought it would get so big and I think it is amazing.”

The words of a 16-year-old Swedish teenager who skipped school to protest outside her government’s inaction on climate change. Greta Thunberg is marvelling at how, in just a few short months, her solitary protests outside Sweden’s parliament, have inspired and united hundreds of thousands of young people and others across the globe into a powerful, growing grassroots movement for climate change action.

And growing.

Thunberg’s school climate strike has inspired more than 1,500 climate strike events in more than 100 countries across the globe, from Argentina to New Zealand.

Lysa John – Credit: CIVICUS

For those of us fighting what can often feel like a losing battle against a rising tide of rights repression, Thunberg’s words should offer a profoundly insightful message – a lightbulb moment – about the way forward for our struggle for a just, inclusive and sustainable world. About mobilizing for amazing results.

It is fair to say that the traditional civil society sector is at a crossroads. Public trust in and support for aid organisations and NGOs has faded, thanks in part to recent high-profile abuse scandals, dwindling resources and frustration with a lack of real structural societal change in spite of our efforts.

The old approaches of working with governments, who are failing to serve their people’s interests, for incremental change, is not working anymore.

This watershed moment for organized civil society comes amid a serious, global crisis in democracy. A staggering 7 billion people live in countries where fundamental freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly are not properly respected, according to The CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civic freedoms worldwide.

In this environment, citizen action is increasingly being organized into grassroots, social movements – mass-based, non-hierarchical groupings driven by people power, that are starting to prove successful in the fight for human rights and social justice.

The global #MeToo gender rights movement and the March for Our Lives American gun reform movement led by high school students – both still growing campaigns – provide encouraging lessons for the Climate School Strike movement on the power of this dynamic approach to activism.

So, how does civil society engage social movements in a way to harness the power of dynamic, new ways to tackling the world’s most pressing challenges?

That’s a key question that more than 700 civil society leaders, activists and international organization representatives will be trying to answer when they meet for the global International Civil Society Week (ICSW) gathering in Belgrade next week, from April 8-12.

Hosted by CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organisations in partnership with Civic Initiatives, a Serbian association of NGOs, the conference’s theme, “The Power of Togetherness”, explores how people and organisations around the world can, and are, working together to enable and defend spaces for civic action in a world where global transformations are reshaping how civil society functions.

In order to build stronger, more resilient and effective civil society we need to re-connect with citizens. Across the world, we are seeing the emergence of diverse civic movements aimed at calling out injustices or achieving improvements in governance in local and national contexts.

Many of these are spontaneous, self-organised expressions of change – led by ordinary people who feel strongly about universal values of justice, integrity and solidarity. For formal civil society organisations (CSOs), there could not be a better time to lean into and strengthen approaches to community leadership for ‘glo-cal’ change.

We have the passion and intellect to connect the action on the streets with the spaces where decisions must be taken; and to channel the local energies for change into strategies for long-term, globally-connected transformation.

At the International Civil Society Week (ICSW), a primary goal is for delegates to work together to understand and connect with people’s movements on the streets around the world, to build bridges that strengthen alliances and create solidarity and to identify steps to build and sustain collective impact.

On every continent, forces seek to undo the advances made in our societies and communities. But around the world, brave citizens continue to risk their lives to stand up against repression and persecution.

The ICSW is all the more significant this year as civil society leaders, activists and innovators are gathering in a country in which a growing social movement has been demonstrating some of these very goals.

For weeks now, there have been ongoing mass protests in the capital, Belgrade, calling for democratic reforms under the banner of a campaign known as “#OneinFiveMillion. The campaign is a live example of how civil society plays an instrumental role in fighting to protect and expand civic freedoms and democratic values in the Balkans and globally. The toppling of Macedonia’s government in 2017 by unprecedented civic action is another example of that fight back.

Serbian civil society played a crucial role in the country’s transition to democracy. But not all parts of the country’s society are equally protected, with gay-rights activists and women human rights defenders, in particular, targets of attacks and threats.

By hosting ICSW 2019 in Serbia, we will shine a spotlight on the region’s communities, help address their challenges and find ways to support them.

We will also examine the opportunities we have to forge new alliances and increase our collective impact by coming together to fight for common issues. Across the past year, we have civil society get better at transferring strategies and lessons for change across countries.

India’s legal win for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community has, for instance, boosted efforts to repeal discriminatory laws in other countries, including Costa Rica and Portugal. In Argentina, Kenya and Ireland, we saw ordinary people take action to defend and advance abortion rights.

Last, but not in the least, we will spend time reviewing the changes we need within civil society and the way we operate. We need greater accountability for our own actions and the way we engage those we are meant to serve and represent.

Revelations of scandals around sexual and other misconduct by NGO officials in recent years have done much to erode public trust in the integrity of our organisations and our mission. Urgent solutions – new ways of operating – will continue to be sought through our deliberations at the International Civil Society Week.

As in previous years, this week of dialogue will enable us to emerge stronger in our individual and collective inspirations for change. The ICSW is that much needed space for us to step back from the overwhelming urgency of ‘doing’ and spend time instead thinking deeply about questions of our relevance and legitimacy as a sector.

It will be a time for us to go beyond individual mandates and limitations, and work instead on developing pathways for our future relevance, including in relation to investments we need to make in order nurture the next generation of civic leaders.

This includes decisive and innovative ways to expand the tent of ‘civil society’ beyond traditional limits and enabling more people than ever before to share our values and speak out for the changes needed to ensure a just, inclusive and sustainable world.

Building a new generation of champions for social justice – in the way that Greta Thunberg has inspired millions of children and youth to take action for the climate – is the future we need to design together; our time in Belgrade offers us the opportunity to commit to doing this better and more actively together.

Excerpt:

By Michel Forst
GENEVA, Apr 1 2019 (IPS)

They are ordinary people – mothers, fathers, sisters, sons, daughters, brothers, friends. But for me they are extraordinary people – the ones who have the courage to stand up for everyone else’s rights.

They are the human rights defenders.

Last year, according to reliable sources, 321 of them were killed, in 27 countries. Their murders were directly caused by the work they do to ensure the rest of us enjoy the rights we claim as purely because we are human.

The mandate on the situation of human rights defenders was established in 2000 by the Commission on Human Rights (as a Special Procedure) to support implementation of the 1998 Declaration on human rights defenders.

Countless others were tortured, raped and threatened, also for the work they do protecting their, and others’ human rights.

In fact, 2018 was deadliest year for human rights defenders since the UN began monitoring the challenges they face through the establishment of a mandate for a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

It shouldn’t be like this.

Last year we marked 70 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 20 since the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. The latter Declaration provides for the practical support and protection of human rights defenders as they go about their work.

It is addressed not just to states and to human rights defenders, but to everyone. It tells us that we all have a role to fulfil as human rights defenders and emphasises that there is a global human rights movement that involves us all.

This is a task we are not performing well.

Human rights should not need defenders, and human rights defenders should not need protection from the might of oppressive governments, corrupt multinationals and crooked legal systems. But this is an imperfect, human world.

Since 2000, when we UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders began our monitoring work, much progress has been made. There has been extensive discussion on how these courageous people should be protected, and there is a Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists in a limited number of countries.

Sadly, it is often not properly implemented, or funded.

It is impossible to canvass each defender’s particular treatment or mistreatment by the authorities they face, or even that of communities of defenders. There are, however, trends.

On 23 October last year, Julián Carrillo, an indigenous rights defender from Mexico’s state of Chihuahua told a friend by phone that he believed he was being watched and that he was going into hiding. On the evening of 25 October, his body was found. He had been shot several times.

On 22 August last year, Annaliza Dinopol Gallardo, a Filipina land rights defender known to her community as “Ate Liza”, was shot dead outside Sultan Kudarat State University in Tacurong City. She had four children.

Mr Carillo’s murder is indicative of the largest trend. More than two-thirds – a full 77% – of the total number of defenders killed were defending land, environmental or indigenous peoples’ rights, often in the context of extractive industries and state-aligned mega-projects.

Ms Gallardo’s murder represents another trend – the number of attacks on women and girls who are defenders is increasing. In the recent report that I have presented to the UN Human Rights Council I have highlighted that, in addition to the threats experienced by their male colleagues, women human rights defenders face gendered and sexualised attacks from both state and non-state actors, as well as from within their own human rights movements.

This includes smear campaigns questioning their commitment to their families; sexual assault and rape; militarised violence; and the harassment and targeting of their children.

Changing all this is our task for the future. Protection Mechanisms for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists need to be properly implemented and funded, at national level.

We need to empower defenders and increase the abilities of those who are responsible for their protection to keep them safe. We also need to improve the accountability mechanisms these officials operate under.

To properly defend the defenders, we also need to recognise their diversity, and that each one of them faces challenges particular to their individual circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to ensuring each defender is able to do their work unfettered.

We need to acknowledge that defenders, just like all of us, live in this modern, interconnected world.

Protecting them means covering all aspects of their safety: physical, psychological and digital. It means doing so with flexibility. It also means that our protection needs to extend to their families, and the groups and organisations they belong to. We need to speak to them about what they need to feel safe.

In recent years the world has taken a worrying turn away from respect for human rights. Increasingly, groups are becoming inward-looking, and nations nationalistic. We need human rights defenders now more than ever.

They also need us.

Excerpt:

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 28 2019 (IPS)

The widespread political repression in countries such as the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia– and rising right-wing nationalism in the US, Brazil, Italy, India, Poland and Hungary– have increasingly triggered attacks on human rights and civil society organisations (CSOs).

The annual 2019 “State of Civil Society” report released March 27 details a “terrifying picture of fundamental freedoms under serious threat in 111 of the world’s countries”– well over half of all the countries globally.”

Only four per cent of the world’s population live in countries where fundamental freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression are respected and enabled.

Authored by the Johannesburg-based CIVICUS, a global alliance of CSOs and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society worldwide, the study warns that the rise of right-wing populism and the influence of anti-rights extremist groups are helping to fuel these threats to democracy in so many nations.

But the report also outlines the various ways, in various countries, that civil society and citizens are fighting back, and claiming victories in defence of their rights.

As one of the “alarming examples,” it singles out the Italian government’s decision to impose a hefty fine on one of the world’s best known humanitarian organisations, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while simultaneously freezing their assets, impounding their rescue vessel and investigating their staff for human trafficking…in retaliation for their efforts to save refugees from drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.

And there were also instances of activists being charged, tried and convicted in the United States for providing water supplies for migrants crossing the deadly Sonoran desert on the US/Mexico border.

Lysa John, CIVICUS Secretary General, says “civil society, acting on humanitarian impulses, confronts a rising tide of global mean spiritedness, challenging humanitarian values in a way unparalleled since the Second World War.”

“We need a new campaign, at both global and domestic levels, to reinforce humanitarian values and the rights of progressive civil society groups to act,” added John.

The theme of this year’s ICSW, which takes place in Belgrade April 8-12, is “The Power of Togetherness” focusing on harnessing the power of collective action to respond to rights restrictions and rightwing globalism.

According to the CIVICUS report, in Europe, the US and beyond – from Brazil to India – right wing populists, nationalists and extremist groups are mobilising dominant populations to attack the most vulnerable.

This has led to an attack on the values behind humanitarian response as people are being encouraged to blame minorities and vulnerable groups for their concerns about insecurity, inequality, economic hardship and isolation from power.

This means that civil society organisations that support the rights of excluded populations such as women and LGBTQI people and stand up for labour rights are being attacked.

As narrow notions of national sovereignty are being asserted, the report points out, the international system is being rewritten by powerful states, such as China, Russia and the USA, that refuse to play by the rules.

“Borders and walls are being reinforced by rogue leaders who are bringing their styles of personal rule into international affairs by ignoring existing institutions, agreements and norms”.

The report also points to a startling spike in protests relating to economic exclusion, inequality and poverty, which are often met with violent repression, and highlights a series of flawed and fake elections held in countries around the world in the last year.

“Democratic values are under strain around the globe from unaccountable strong men attacking civil society and the media in unprecedented – and often brutal – ways,” said Andrew Firmin, CIVICUS’ Editor-in-Chief and the report’s lead author.

And 2018 is being billed as a year in which regressive forces appeared to gain ground.

But the past year was also one in which committed civil society activists fought back against the rising repression of rights.

The report points out to the successes of the global #MeToo women’s rights movement to the March for Our Lives gun reform movement led by high school students in the US– to the growing school strike climate change movement, collective action gained ground to claim breakthroughs.

“Despite the negative trends, active citizens and civil society organisations have been able to achieve change in Armenia, where a new political dispensation is in place, and in Ethiopia, where scores of prisoners of conscience have been released,” said John.

The report makes several recommendations for civil society and citizen action. The report calls for new strategies to argue against right-wing populism while urging progressive civil society to engage citizens towards better, more positive alternatives.

These include developing and promoting new ideas on economic democracy for fairer economies that put people and rights at their centre. Notably, the report calls for reinforcing the spirit of internationalism, shared humanity and the central importance of compassion in everything we say and do.

Meanwhile, says the report, international institutions mostly struggled, hamstrung by the interests and alliances of powerful states, doing little to respond to the great challenges of the day, failing to fight overwhelming inequality, silent on the human rights abuses of states such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan, letting down the people of Syria and the Rohingya people of Myanmar, among many others.

Asked if the United Nations shouldn’t name and shame these countries where right wing extremism is on the rise, Mandeep Tiwana, Chief Programmes Officer at CIVICUS, told IPS the UN is facing serious funding challenges which make it dependent on the contributions of big countries for its operating budget.

“This might be leading to situations where ultra-nationalist leaders or those who subscribe to authoritarian precepts are getting a free pass for their actions that flagrantly violate the spirit of the UN Charter and also international law”.

He also pointed out that the funding situation is so dire that a number of UN bodies are courting private corporations to shore up their funding including with regards to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which could lead to undesirable policy influence in the fight against inequality, on labour rights and on efforts to reduce high level corruption.

Often restrictions on civil society are worsened when the increasingly close partnerships between governments and the private sector go unscrutinised.

It’s also important to remember, said Tiwana, that while the UN is increasingly turning to the private sector for assistance in achieving sustainable development, it is often civil society organisations that are working hand in hand with the UN in delivering humanitarian services on the frontlines, and risking their lives doing so.

“The divisive and selfish actions of nationalist leaders indicate that we might be heading towards a full-blown crisis of the multilateral system”.

“In the present situation where we are facing a crisis of compassion from the actions of meanspirited right wing populists, it’s important that the UN stands with civil society organisations and activists working towards just, equal and sustainable societies”.

He argued that public statements from senior UN officials across the institutions’ various pillars, followed by actions and willingness by UN officials on the ground to engage governments that attack human rights and civil society, are urgently needed in the present scenario.

The UN needs to make common cause with political leaders and governments committed to strengthening multilateralism and the international human rights framework in these testing times, he declared.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

Excerpt: