Africa

A health worker at a local health centre in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, prepares a vaccine injection. The dispatch of millions of COVID-19 vaccines to Africa started in February. Credit: UNICEF/Sibylle Desjardins

By Tlaleng Mofokeng
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Feb 25 2021 (IPS)

The UNAIDS 2020 Global AIDS Update gave us a clear indication why the world did not meet the Fast-Track targets by 2020. Inequality, perpetuated by structural oppression such as gender inequality; economic disparity; including human rights abuses and violations. For most of us living in sub-Saharan Africa, we don’t need a report to tell us this. Our lives are a litany of inequality we know deep in our guts.

Inequality is growing for more than 70% of the global population, solidifying divisions and hampering economic and social development. COVID-19 is impacting the most people in vulnerable situations the hardest— even as vaccines for COVID-19 are becoming available, there is great evidence of inequality in accessing them.

Inequality is the unfinished business of the AIDS, sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence responses. Structural challenges are borne unfairly by individuals through differential access to healthcare

Confronting inequalities and ending discrimination is critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, a collection of 17 interlinked global goals designed to be a blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. We have less than 10 years remaining to meet these goals.

The right to health is interconnected with other rights, such as the right to information, the right to freedom and security, the right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to bodily autonomy.

Almost all these global goals are linked to important determinants of health therefore achieving them will impact the right to health for all.

We know that 2020 was a challenging year for many health systems across the globe from the highest level of national leadership to community-based health facilities. Because of COVID-19, human, financial and research resources have been diverted from other health programmes including HIV prevention, sexual and reproductive health and rights and gender-based violence services.

Unfortunately, this means that health systems in regions with high HIV rates are more susceptible to fragility. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to almost half the global population of people living with HIV. This makes the issue even more urgent. COVID-19, like HIV, is showing us what health systems lack in planning and resourcing.

In May 2020, a mathematical modelling group convened by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that a six-month disruption to HIV services could lead to an additional 500 000 deaths from AIDS-related illnesses (including Tuberculosis) in sub-Saharan Africa in 2020–2021.

A six-month total disruption in these services was an extreme scenario and thankfully turned out to be less severe than feared. What this research did was to show us how vigilant we need to be about to HIV service disruptions and that the additional demands that COVID-19 has placed on health systems are real.

COVID-19 has shown the world that for many people across the globe, health is not simply a matter of individual health predispositions, but also a matter that is determined by economic and social conditions that influence the health of people and communities.

Inequality is the unfinished business of the AIDS, sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence responses. Structural challenges are borne unfairly by individuals through differential access to healthcare. Socio-economic and structural factors interact with each other to generate and reinforce negative health outcomes that disproportionately affect poor and people in vulnerable situations.

Accordingly, human rights must be the basis of solutions and policy that centres people in vulnerable situations who are often neglected from health services goods and facilities such as women, indigenous people, people of African descent, people with disabilities, older persons, people experiencing homelessness, migrants and refugees and key populations, that is, sex workers, people who use drugs, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and gender-diverse people. These marginalized groups often lack access to HIV and other critical sexual and reproductive health, social protection and legal services.

It is important that we pay special attention to the role of laws, policies and practices that contribute to poor physical and mental health and in fuelling stigma against vulnerable people.

Every country in the world has at least one law that still criminalizes either same-sex sexual relationships, sex work, personal drug use or HIV exposure and transmission.

There are some countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are pockets of excellence. We hear stories of heroic individuals or communities who have ensured that people have access to increase adherence to HIV treatment against all odds. Many countries have implemented multi-month dispensing of antiretroviral medicines to three or six months, as recommended by the WHO.

But we do need successes to be much structural and far-reaching.

Comprehensive HIV management is an integral part of realizing sexual and reproductive health rights and is in line the state’s duty to respect, promote and fulfill the right to health. It is therefore incumbent on governments to repeal laws criminalizing HIV, non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission, as well as consensual sexual activities between adults and the criminalization of gender diversity, transgender identity or expression.

Sex work must be decriminalized and countries must prevent human rights violations of forced or coerced sterilization of HIV positive women.

In 2020, South Africa’s Commission for Gender Equality released a report that documents 48 cases where women were allegedly forced or coerced to undergo sterilization. There must be justice for such women, and we must prevent the occurrence of forced or coerced sterilization.

We must commit to the operationalization of the UNAIDS Rights in the time of COVID-19 report that calls on us to combat all forms of stigma and discrimination including those based on race, profession and those directed towards marginalized groups that prevent them from accessing care.

Ending inequality is the only way to achieve the right to health for all and it is everyone’s business to ensure that we do so.

Zero Discrimination Day is commemorated by the United Nations every year on 1 March. This year, the UN is highlighting the urgent need to take action to end the inequalities surrounding income, sex, age, health status, occupation, disability, sexual orientation, drug use, gender identity, race, class, ethnicity and religion that continue to persist around the world.

The views expressed herein are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.

 

Tlaleng Mofokeng is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. She is a South African medical doctor, author and broadcaster. 

 

The post Ending Inequality is Everyone’s Business appeared first on Inter Press Service.

By Cendrella Azar
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb 25 2021 (IPS)

Our deadliest nightmare is back: Political assassinations in Lebanon is back with the horrific murder of Luqman Slim, a vocal critic of Hezbollah. Slim’s assassination is the first killing of a high-profile activist and outspoken journalist in years. What do the political assassinations in Lebanon tell us about the history of this country?

Lebanon, the Sectarian Pie

People are often baffled by Lebanon’s complex governing system. This small country was always subjected to sectarian tensions, where different sects historically competed for power. Those ancient tensions had disastrous consequences dragging the country into 15 years of a bloody civil war. In 1989, the Taif agreement ended the war and ensured that this pie, Lebanon, is equally divided among the different sects. Everyone must have a slice of the pie. This fragile power sharing system, led to fragile peace and turned Lebanon in to a victim of political, social and economic paralysis.

State of Freedom of Speech in Lebanon

Free speech has the lion’s share when it comes to hardships in Lebanon. Reporting on issues of public interest, including government policies and legislation and providing unbiased information to the public subjected journalists to intimidation, harassment and violence. In the Lebanese scene, the space for freedom of expression and independent media is dwindling. Attacks on journalists and those who try to shape opinions are seldom investigated and offenders rarely brought to justice. Arbitrary detentions, and kidnappings, ill-treatment and other forms of terrorization are forcing journalists to retreat in the midst of the absence of effective safety training, laws and judiciary measures.

Why are Lebanese Journalists in Danger?

Samir Skayni, a Lebanese journalist who authored the books “Once Upon a Sunday” describe the many aspects of the Lebanese civil war and its aftermath, highlighted in exclusive comments to IPS, the reasons for Lebanese journalists being under threat: “Journalists are at risk in Lebanon given the fields of their interventions, in other words, the sensitive files that they tackle. Journalists are filling the void caused by the reluctance of security and judicial forces to take actions. In addition, when criticizing, any file will certainly affect parties due to the network of clienteles relations and overlapping of parties’ interests within state sectors. Journalists are additionally at risk due to the affiliation of the judiciary sector to political parties, these threats take their toll and enter the realm of benefit without being deterred.” Skayni also defined political assassinations stating: “In principle, political assassinations are rejected. An assassination aims at eliminating an opponent or an enemy. Often, in the Lebanese case, the “opponent” is usually unarmed. The victim is generally opposing the ruling authorities. In those cases, assassinations are not acceptable. Yet, the concept of assassinations is seen as an act of resistance, if the opponent is armed and inflicting hardships on groups and communities.”

Weak Laws & Absent Syndicate

Today, the existing press syndicate headed by Aouni Al-Kaaki, represents nothing but the interest of the political elites. All of the journalists and the media workers’ demands are effectively falling on deaf ears. No serious actions have been taken to improve the state of the press, especially in an era where the press freedom in Lebanon is “partially free” according to the Freedom House. In the face of all the assaults, the syndicate was nothing but an idle bystander.

Speaking to IPS, Lebanese civil activist and member of Lihaqqi group Pierre Khoury, stated: “It feels like the Big Brother is watching us. We have reached unprecedented and alarming levels of repression.” He added: “The National Audiovisual Council in Lebanon is completely biased. A few days ago, all TV Station chiefs were summoned to stand before the Council following Journalist Dima Sadek’s episode which tackled the assassination of Louqman Slim.” When asked about potential solutions, Khoury revealed “The solution is to abolish the Ministry of Information. The law does not provide the essential needed protection for journalists, but rather, it transfers any “disturbing” opinion to trial through the Publications Law. Laws are restricting freedom of expression.”

Chrystine Mhanna, Communication and Advocacy officer at the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), stated to IPS that the present laws are insufficient. Mhanna said: “the laws are not sufficient, or we would have seen accountability taking place when it comes to assassinations or illegal prosecutions. Alternatives could include having independent investigations when it comes to freedom of expression cases, respecting human rights treaties, having clear policies when it comes to freedom of expression through digital platforms and ensuring that summons and procedures are legal when someone is called for investigation.” Mhanna added, “In a democratic country, freedom of expression laws should only limit hate speech, harm, slander and libel when an actual harm is done, not when the opposing opinion doesn’t appease the authority”.

Silenced Voices, Stolen Justice

Media is a traditional agent of social change; it has the power to influence people and shape opinions and attitudes. Media is a also a contributor to values and beliefs and when the media is controlled, the access of the public to information and facts are limited. Consequently, democracy and social justice are doomed. Lebanon is no longer considered as a bastion of freedoms in this region that is filled with censorship and oppression; the country has joined neighboring states in exercising oppression, crushing protests using violence. The right of journalists to execute their work within a safe environment, without facing extensive forms of harassment, attacks and even being killed is a topic of great importance. Today more than ever we ask: When will this nation finally celebrate Justice?

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The post Lebanon: A Lion Pit for Journalism appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Caster Semenya will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against the restriction of testosterone levels in female runners.

Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg has faced massive backlash for supporting the Indian farmers’ protests. (File photo) Credit: Anders Hellberg/CC BY-SA 4.0

By Samira Sadeque
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 25 2021 (IPS)

The United Nations Peacebuilding Commission must prioritise the protection of youth activists who face retaliation from state and non-state actors, said UN Youth Envoy Jayathma Wickramanayake.

Wickramanayake was speaking at the Peacebuilding Commission high-level virtual meeting on Youth, Peace and Security, where she outlined numerous ways the commission can assist youth activists around the world — especially with their grassroots efforts.

“I hope you will consider including young people in your delegation to building commissions, consult young people in your own countries to input to your work and, most importantly, ensure the protection of young people who you decide to engage with as we have seen many incidents of retaliation against young activists by state and non-state actors for simply deciding to speak up and working with the UN,” Wickramanayake, from Sri Lanka, told the commisison.

Other speakers at the event included Mohamed Edrees, chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, Allwell O. Akhigbe of Building Blocks for Peace Foundation in Nigeria and Oscar Fernández-Taranco, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support.

Wickramanayake comments come when youth activists are facing attacks and harassment online and offline. Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg has faced massive backlash for supporting the Indian farmers’ protests, while Indian youth activist Disha Ravi was arrested because of her activism in support of the protests.

Wickramanayake further highlighted the importance of acknowledging and promoting local grassroots organisations working in the field of youth peacebuilding.

“Young people around the world are building national coalitions, conducting baseline studies and monitoring efforts in support of youth-led peacebuilding,” she said.

She added that these organisations require “adequate, predictable and sustained” financing to thrive but this was yet to be explored.

“I would like to challenge this commission today to consider what the peacebuilding commission can do to encourage this critical support and resources at the local level where they are actually making a big difference,” she said.

Wickramanayake recommended that the commission should not only support a “substantial increase in the financial resources” for peace and security, but it should also make sure that the resources go directly to youth working on “homegrown building strategies”. 

Mia Franczesca D. Estipona, from the Generation Peace Youth Network in the Philippines, also shared the importance of involving youth who are directly affected by issues such as conflict.

“In creating facilities for youth projects and capacity building for support, we must make an effort to directly engage with youths in areas affected by conflict, understand their work and how it contributes back to the community,” Estipona said. “This is highly important especially for community-based youths who have programmes and projects but cannot be sustained due to lack of access to funding and support.” 

Both Estipona and Wickramanayake emphasised the importance of representation and being inclusive of marginalised youths or those whose stories are often left behind.

Wickramanayake highlighted the work of a colleague who promotes the voices of youth with disabilities and had reportedly briefed the Security Council on the situation in the Central African Republic by broadcasting the issue of youth, peace and security in sign language.

“[Their] organisation removes barriers limiting the participation of young people with disabilities in peacebuilding, actively mobilising the deaf community to act on Resolution 2250,” she said, referring to the UN Security Council Youth, Peace & Security thematic resolution that deals with the topic of youth from an international peace and security perspective.

Meanwhile, Estipona pointed out: “Many youth organisations have established strong programmes that truly represent and attend to youth who are in areas affected by conflict – their voices are most left behind.”

“We should pursue representation that truly represents and focuses on the collective efforts of youth as a community — and as a sector of society, not just as a different individual,” she said.

Other speakers at the event agreed with both Wickramanayake and Estipona.

Ambassador Rabab Fatima, the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN, said that it’s crucial to address the “distinct needs” of the youth as the world recovers from the coronavirus pandemic.

She highlighted the importance of access to education, sufficient funding, and including youth participation in peacebuilding as part of the “broader national policy framework”. 

Estipona said the engagement of the youth must be sustained in various stages of the process of peacebuilding: consultation, crafting, implementation and monitoring.

“Continuity of these efforts is still a challenge because they are constantly shifting priorities of stakeholders and leadership,” she said.

In offering recommendations on how to strengthen youth participation and involvement, Wickramanayake said there must be a periodic review of the efforts to increase engagement with young people.

“Accountability is key,” she said, “[we] want to hear your strategic plan. Also think beyond security and think about the intersection of peace, sustainable development, and human rights.” 

She also urged leaders to “walk the talk” – and prioritise the development of dedicated local, national and regional road maps and action plans.

Related Articles

• Q&A: Tigray – the Fighting will Continue & Exacerbate Civilian Suffering
• 60 Days on, India’s Biggest Farmers’ Protest Shows No Sign of Weakening

The post UN Peacebuilding Commission must Prioritise Protecting Youth Activists Facing Retaliation appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Forest women in Anantagiri forest in the south-east of India check out their solar dryer. (file photo) There is a growing shift and awareness in mainstream political, corporate and public debate about the need for climate action. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS.

By Samira Sadeque
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 25 2021 (IPS)

A keen awareness about the intersection of our ecosystem and the “accelerating destabilisation of the climate” is helping shift the narrative for climate action and can help us transition from being polluters to becoming protectors of the climate, said Marco Lambertini, Director General at the World Wide Fund for Nature.

“Science has never been clearer. We are currently witnessing a catastrophic decline in our planet’s ecosystems and biodiversity, and an accelerating destabilisation of the climate. And today we also understand that the two are interconnected,” Lambertini told IPS. “This isn’t in fact new.”

Lambertini spoke to IPS following the Fifth Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) which took place this week, with the launch of the “Medium-Term Strategy” by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Over two days, world leaders gathered virtually to discuss climate sustainability and how deeply the coronavirus pandemic worsened the current climate crisis.

“Humanity continues to misappropriate nature, commoditise it, destroy it,” Keriako Tobiko, the Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Kenya, said on Monday. “The consequences of our actions are obvious – we’re paying a heavy price for that.”

Indian environmental activist Afroz Shah, a UNEP Champion of the Earth, said during UNEA-5 that leaders must go beyond talk and ensure implementation of measures to protect the environment.

“There must be a paradigm shift in the narrative, to go from being a polluter to a protector,” he said, urging leaders to make sure this message was given to every citizen.

Lambertini told IPS this “shift” in the narrative was already happening.

“What is new is that this awareness is beginning to reach mainstream political, corporate and public debate,” Lambertini added. “The narrative is also shifting. Conserving nature is not only being seen as an ecological and moral issue, but also an economic, development, health and equity issue. This is a true cultural revolution in our civilisation.”

Lambertini’s insight complemented what was said during UNEA-5.

Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP, said during the assembly that a “green recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic would be a step in the right direction of implementing changes to protect the environment.

Tackling environmental sustainability was, after all, another means to ending poverty, she said.

“We need to start putting words into action after UNEA-5 and that means backing a green recovery from the pandemic, stronger and national determined contributions to the Paris Agreement, more funding for adaptation, agreeing on an ambitious and implementable post-2020 biodiversity framework, and a new progress on plastic pollution,” Andersen said.

Meelis Münt, Estonia’s Secretary General of the Ministry of the Environment, echoed Andersen’s point.

“We are confident that a green and digital transition will support our post-pandemic recovery,” he said, adding Estonia aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, with their government’s plans to “lead the production of solid coastal fuel based electricity by 2035”.

Other speakers at UNEA-5 included ministers from Kenya, Brazil, Jamaica and Malawi, among others, many of whom shared the initiatives their countries were implementing to protect the environment.

Marcus Henrique Morais Paranaguá, Brazil’s Deputy Minister for Climate and International Relations, pointed out that for Brazilians it was a unique situation where development and preservation of the Amazon forest had to be balanced.

“The Amazon forest alone occupies 49 percent of our territory and over 60 percent of our territory is covered today with natural vegetation,” he said. “Brazil must implement innovative public policy to balance nature conservation and the promotion of sustainable development.”

Pearnel Charles Jr., Jamaica’s Minister of Housing, Urban Renewal, Environment and Climate Change, shared that his country’s government was in the process of updating their climate change policy so that it complemented the Paris Agreement. He added that Jamaica’s administration also increased its “emissions reduction ambition,” and was implementing a tree planting initiative to reduce biodiversity loss. 

Tobiko of Kenya said a big milestone for the country was banning single-use plastic in public conservation areas. Kenya has recently been acknowledged and applauded for its successful fight against single use plastic.   

“We cannot afford another lost decade for biodiversity,” Lambertini told IPS. “Many ecosystems like coral reefs and tropical forests are heading towards tipping points and one million species are now threatened with extinction.”

“If we are to collectively survive and thrive, particularly in this COVID-19 pandemic, we must take the opportunity to review, reevaluate and possibly reinvent in charting the most sustainable way forward,” Charles Jr. said.

Overall, Lambertini was hopeful, citing a heightened awareness of climate justice among activists, and the fact that nature conservation was now seen as an economic, health and equity issue.

“We need clarity and alignment, to create a level playing field, and a north star/southern cross able to unite governments, businesses, investors and consumers around the ambition science demands,” he told IPS. “Only in this way we will meet the challenge to transition to an equitable, nature-positive and net-zero carbon world and forums like UNEA-5 must pave the way for these commitments and more importantly, concrete actions.”

Related Articles

• The Global Insecurity of Climate Change
• Q&A: UN Environment Assembly Kicks Off With a Call to Make Peace with Nature

The post A Growing Shift in the Narrative about Climate Action appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Vulnerable people need support, not stricter laws

By Simona Marinescu
APIA, Samoa, Feb 25 2021 (IPS)

Earlier this month, and in December 2020 the Government of Samoa conducted operations that resulted in the confiscation of a total of 1,400 grams of methamphetamine at the border, smuggled from the US.

The law enforcement officials (from the Ministry of Customs and Revenue and the Ministry of Police and Prisons) that intercepted these drugs deserve congratulations for their professionalism and skill. Meth is destructive and harmful – and it is good to see this potential threat removed from the community.

Simona Marinescu

As small as this bust is by global standards, 1,400 grams in a couple of months is a record for Samoa (there were only two convictions for methamphetamine possession in Samoa in 2017). Perhaps it is inevitable that we will see an increase in seizures. As COVID-19 ravishes the economy and exacerbates inequality, some may look to less than legal means to supplement their dwindling incomes, and drug use is known to increase in communities facing economic hardship. Governments need to work to reduce drug consumption – especially with respect to more harmful substances like meth and opioids, which have devastated communities around the world. For example, there were more than 67,000 overdose deaths in the US alone in 2018. Thankfully, so far, Samoa has avoided this degree of harm.

But while it is sometimes tempting to “crack down” (no pun intended) in the face of an emerging perceived threat, we must resist the urge to increase legal penalties. We should be decriminalizing drug use and possession. Drugs are a serious health and social issue, not a moral one. Reducing consumption requires a health and socially focused response, not moral panic. This must include carefully thought-out laws that emphasize prevention, education and harm reduction. We need properly funded community-based support services that help and protect vulnerable people, and assist them in escaping degrading and difficult circumstances. Stopping drug use will not be achieved through hastily drafted legislation that further criminalizes addiction. By discouraging the demand for drugs, we can actually be more effective in tackling drug trafficking and putting an end to the human suffering caused by increased consumption.

This is not just my opinion – but the official policy of the United Nations, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and multiple governments around the world. Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, and numerous Australian and US states are among the many jurisdictions that have embraced the global trend towards less repression of drug users. A recent example of this is New Zealand’s 2019 Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, which gives police discretion to take a health-centred approach rather than prosecuting those in possession of drugs.

Since its enactment in 1967, Samoa’s Narcotics Act has only been amended twice, in 2006 and 2009 respectively. An official report in 2017 says that these amendments “were inadequate to address the prevalence of drug-related issues in Samoa and the new developments in the evolving drug environment.” There is a clear need to reform Samoa’s ancient drug legislation, but we must reform in line with the best available evidence. Tougher prison sentences have not been shown to deter possession, reduce offending or diminish the social or health issues associated with drug use. They have only been shown to intensify and complicate these problems.

Calling for decriminalization is by no means an endorsement of drug use – but an appeal to look towards the evidence. Samoa has been a willing participant in the global “war on drugs” – adopting the broken criminalization model for more than 50 years. (If you are fighting a “war” for more than five decades and you haven’t “won,” you need to reassess your strategy.) Prohibition has only succeeded in creating an illegal market ruled by violence, corruption and insecurity. Samoa must adopt better practices and distance itself from the failings of this ideologically-driven approach.

The author is United Nations Resident Coordinator, Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, and Tokelau.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The post Drug Use is a Health Issue – We Need to Decriminalize appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Vulnerable people need support, not stricter laws

The post Drug Use is a Health Issue – We Need to Decriminalize appeared first on Inter Press Service.

A UN patrol team, deployed for monitoring ceasefire, drives through the Smara area of Western Sahara. Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says he ‘remains committed’ to maintaining the 1991 ceasefire in Western Sahara. Credit: UN Photo/Martine Perret

By Ambassador Sidi Omar
NEW YORK, Feb 25 2021 (IPS)

The question of Western Sahara, known as Africa’s last colony, has recently gained great visibility in international media interestingly due to two drastic developments.

The first occurred on 13 November 2020 when Moroccan forces breached the 1991 ceasefire by attacking Sahrawi civilians who were demonstrating peacefully in Guerguerat in southern Western Sahara.

The second took place on 10 December 2020 when the outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump made a proclamation declaring U.S. recognition of “Moroccan sovereignty” over Western Sahara, which Morocco has been occupying since October 1975.

As expected, Morocco’s breach of the ceasefire forced the people of Western Sahara under the leadership of their legitimate representative, the Frente POLISARIO, to resume their legitimate liberation struggle put on hold since 1991.

At that time both parties, the Frente POLISARIO and Morocco, under the UN-OAU auspices, mutually agreed on a ceasefire that came into effect on 6 September 1991.

This arrangement was the first step in a process leading to the holding of a referendum on self- referendum in which the people of Western Sahara would choose, without military or administrative constraints, between independence and integration with Morocco.

To this end, on 29 April 1991, the Security Council established under its authority the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).

Notwithstanding the ups and downs, in January 2000 MINURSO was able to establish the list of potential voters for the referendum thus paving the way for the vote to take place. It was precisely at that moment that Morocco declared that it was no longer willing to procced with the self-determination referendum, obviously for fear of losing at the ballot box. It was as simple as that.

The failure of the UN Security Council to hold Morocco accountable for reneging on its solemn commitment to the mutually agreed referendum on self-determination brought the UN peace process in Western Sahara to a standstill, which continues to date.

Despite Morocco’s complete volte-face, for almost three decades the Frente POLISARIO maintained its commitment to the ceasefire and made many—often painful—concessions for the UN peace process to succeed.

The almost thirty years’ ceasefire in Western Sahara was however violently broken when Moroccan forces attacked Sahrawi civilians on 13 November 2020 forcing the Frente POLISARIO to respond in self-defence.

Morocco’s new aggression has not only put an end to the UN peace process but has also unleashed a second war that has the potential to endanger peace and stability in the region. Once again, the UN Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has remained silent in the face of Morocco’s new aggression.

The proclamation made by the outgoing U.S. President on 10 December 2020 has dealt another heavy blow to the UN peace process in Western Sahara. It is no secret that Trump’s ill-advised decision was a quid pro quo for the deal that Morocco concluded with Israel to normalise their relations—another example of his transactional diplomacy.

Trump’s decision however violates UN resolutions, including Security Council resolutions that the United States drafted and approved over the past decades, and upends the traditional U.S. policy regarding Western Sahara.

It flies in the face of fundamental rules underpinning the international order that prohibit the acquisition of territory by force and establish peoples’ right to self-determination and as an inalienable right and a peremptory norm.

It also hampers the ongoing efforts of the United Nations and the African Union to achieve a peaceful solution to the question of Western Sahara, thereby fuelling tension and threatening peace and stability in the region.

The legal status of Western Sahara is unequivocally clear. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the United Nations principal judicial organ, issued an advisory opinion on Western Sahara on 16 October 1975. The ICJ ruled that there was no tie of territorial sovereignty between the Territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco.

By rebutting Morocco’s claims of sovereignty over Western Sahara, the ICJ established clearly that the sovereignty over the Territory was vested in the Sahrawi people who have the right to decide, through the free and genuine expression of their will, the status of the Territory in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

The United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity (now the African Union) as well as the European Union have never recognised Morocco’s forcible and illegal annexation of parts of Western Sahara that remains on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to be decolonised.

Trump’s proclamation also affirmed the U.S. support for Morocco’s autonomy proposal. Nonetheless, the so-called Moroccan “autonomy proposal”, besides its proven illegality, emanates from an autocratic regime that seeks only to legitimise its forcible acquisition and occupation of parts of Western Sahara.

The United States should therefore advise Morocco to address the legitimate grievances of its own people instead of trying to pursue its expansionism that has had disastrous consequences for the entire region.

As a matter of historical fact, Morocco did not only claim Western Sahara but also Mauritania in 1960s. It was Morocco that included “the problem of Mauritania” in the agenda of the 50th session of the UN General Assembly in 1960 on the grounds that Morocco had legitimate rights over Mauritania. It then took Morocco nine years to recognise Mauritania as an independent country.

Morocco moreover used force against Algeria in October 1963 and Spain (Perejil Island) in July 2002, always in pursuit of its territorial claims, which demonstrates the real nature of the ruling regime in Morocco.

This also shows the extent to which the regime owes its survival to territorial conquest as a tool to divert attention from its deep-rooted domestic legitimacy crisis that had led to two coups against the monarchy in July 1971 and August 1972.

Morocco’s expansionism is therefore the root cause of the enduring tension in North Africa and the main obstacle to the achievement of a united, prosperous, and inclusive Maghreb that brings together all its nations and peoples.

As expected, strong voices from the US Congress, civil society, and the political arena, including former US Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, have expressed their shock and disappointment regarding the attempt to trade away the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

They have also called on the incoming President to reverse Trump’s decision, which is at odds with the new Administration’s declared pledge to recommit the US to multilateralism. Now the question is whether President Joe Biden is willing to reverse Trump’s decision and bring back the United States to its traditional position on Western Sahara.

It is certain that Trump’s proclamation—if maintained—will not change anything substantially in terms of the realities on the ground and the legal status of Western Sahara that is determined by the UN resolutions. It will however put the United States in a rather difficult situation given its membership of the Group of Friends on Western Sahara and the penholder for MINURSO.

In other words, it will not only cast doubt on U.S.’s neutrality vis-à-vis the question of Western Sahara but will also raise the question of whether the United States could continue to play a constructive role in the UN peace process.

For these reasons, the Sahrawi people remain hopeful that President Biden would rescind Trump’s proclamation so that the United States could return to its traditional position on Western Sahara.

The legal and political nature of the issue of Western Sahara as a decolonisation case is unquestionably clear. Therefore, the question before the international community, in particular all peace- and justice-loving countries, comes down to this: do they allow the rule of “might makes right” to prevail in the case of Western Sahara, and thus allow the Moroccan military occupation of parts of the Territory to continue with impunity, or do they defend the fundamental principles underpinning the existing international order and thus implement UN resolutions on the issue?

The solution of the question of Western Sahara is clearly defined in successive UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, which call for a peaceful, just, and lasting solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

This means that no solution will prove either just or lasting if it does not have the consent and full support of the Sahrawi people.

This support can only be expressed through a credible, democratic, and genuine self-determination process that gives our people the opportunity to make their choice among a full range of options including independence.

United Nations resolutions, rules of international law and basic democratic principles all support this understanding of self-determination and its implementation. It is time the international community support it, too, not only in words but also in deeds.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The post Western Sahara, Africa’s Last Colony, to Resume Liberation Struggle on Hold Since 1991 appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Ambassador Sidi Omar is Frente POLISARIO Representative at the United Nations

The post Western Sahara, Africa’s Last Colony, to Resume Liberation Struggle on Hold Since 1991 appeared first on Inter Press Service.

The defence minister said people should at times provide their own security but it is not that easy.

An NGO is training and paying communities in Kenya to catch locusts, so they can be turned into animal feed.

The use of long-distance bombs is part of a new tactic by Islamist militants, local officials say.

Do real-life couples face the same difficulties as those depicted in the Bollywood-Nollywood crossover?

They are learning how to pronounce Gqeberha, the new name for the city of Port Elizabeth.

How to master Xhosa tongue-twisters as South Africa's city of Port Elizabeth changes its name.

Sudanese youth live with continuous insecurity due to climate change vulnerability, including droughts, desertification, land degradation and food insecurity. Courtesy: Albert Gonzalez Farran/ UNAMID/ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

By Nalisha Adams
BONN, Germany, Feb 24 2021 (IPS)

For Sudanese youth, climate change is synonymous with insecurity.

“We are living in a continuous insecurity due to many factors that puts Sudan on top of the list when it comes to climate vulnerability,” said Nisreen Elsaim, Sudanese climate activist and chair of United Nations Secretary General’s Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change.

She said this was directly linked to insecurity within Sudan. She noted that even a Security Council resolution from 2018 which acknowledged “the adverse effects of climate change, ecological changes and natural disasters, among other factors,”, including droughts, desertification, land degradation and food insecurity influenced the situation in Dafur, Sudan.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) ranks Sudan as one of the world’s most vulnerable countries when it comes to climate change. Increased frequency of droughts and high rainfall variability over decades has stressed Sudan’s rainfed agriculture and pastoralist livelihoods, which are the dominant means of living in rural areas like north Dafur.

“In a situation of resources degradation, hunger, poverty and uncontrolled climate migration will [mean] conflict is an inevitable result,” Elsaim said, adding that climate-related emergencies resulted in major disruptions to healthcare and livelihoods and that climate-related migration increased the risk of gender-based violence.

She also pointed out that women, youth and children where the groups most adversely affected by climate insecurity.

In January, inter-communal violence in Darfur displaced over 180,000 people — 60 percent of whom are under the age of 18. “Displacement has declined in recent years in Sudan, but many of its triggers remain unaddressed. Ethnic disputes between herders and farmers over scarce resources overlap with disasters such as flooding and political instability,” the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre said in a statement. There are currently 2.1 million internally displaced persons in Sudan.

Elsaim was speaking yesterday, Feb. 23, during a high-level United Nations Security Council debate focusing on international peace and security and climate change, led by United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The UK currently holds the Security Council presidency and will also be host to the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), which will take place in November in Glasgow, Scotland.

“Land and resources in Africa and in many other parts of the world, because of climate change, can no longer maintain young people,” Elsaim cautioned.

She said in the youth’s search for decent lives, jobs and proper access to services, the new challenge of COVID-19 meant the only solution for many was in country, cross-border or international migration.

The issue is a global one.

Natural historian Sir David Attenborough addressed the council in a video message also giving a stark warning that the “stability of the entire world” could be altered by climate threats.

“Today there are threats to security of a new and unprecedented kind,” Attenborough said.

“They are rising global temperatures, the despoiling of the ocean — that vast universal larder which people everywhere depend for their food. Change in the pattern of weather worldwide that pay no regard to national boundaries but that can turn forests into deserts, drown great cities and lead to the extermination of huge numbers of the other creatures with which we share this planet.”

He cautioned that no matter what the world did now, some of these threats could become a reality, destroying cities and societies.

“If we continue on our current path, we will face the collapse of everything that gives us our security: food production, access to fresh water, habitable ambient temperature, and ocean food chains,” Attenborough cautioned.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the last decade was the hottest in human history and that wildfires, cyclones and floods were the new normal which also affected political, economic and social stability.

“Climate disruption is a crisis amplifier and multiplier,” Guterres told the Security Council. “While climate change dries up rivers, reduces harvests, destroys critical infrastructure and displaces communities, it [also] exacerbates the risks of instability and conflict.”

He referred to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which noted that 8 of the 10 countries hosting the largest multilateral peace operations in 2018 where in areas highly exposed to climate change.

“The impacts of these crises are greatest where fragility and conflicts have weakened coping mechanisms,” Guterres said.

The UN has already stated that 2021 will a be critical, not only for curbing the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, but also for meeting the climate challenge. Guterres has already stated that he plans to focus this year on building a global coalition for carbon neutrality by 2050.

Alongside the Security Council debate, the Fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly wrapped up yesterday. The assembly, world’s top environmental decision-making body attended by government leaders, businesses, civil society and environmental activists, met virtually on Feb. 22 to 23 under the theme “Strengthening Actions for Nature to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals”.

The assembly concluded with member states releasing a statement acknowledging “the urgency to continue our efforts to protect our planet also in this time of crisis”, and calling for multilateral cooperation as they “remain convinced that collective action is essential to successfully address global challenges”.

Joyce Msuya, the Deputy Executive Director for the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), noted that 87 ministers and high-level representatives participated during the two days. She shared some of the points of the dialogue noting that the health of nature and human health were inextricably linked. 

“For our own well-being we must make our peace with nature in a way that demonstrates solidarity,” Msuya said, making reference to a recent UNEP report. 

The report serves a blueprint on how to tackle the triple emergencies of climate, biodiversity loss and pollution and provides detailed solutions by drawing on global assessments.

Msuya added that the nature crisis was linked with the climate and pollution crisis and that the world now had the chance to put in place a green recovery “that will transform our relations with nature and heal our planet”.

She said the green recovery should put the world on a path to a low-carbon, resilient, post-pandemic world.

Meanwhile, Elsaim said that as a young person, she was “sure that young people are the solution”. She urged world leaders to engage with the youth and listen to them.

“Stop conflict by stopping climate change. Give us security and secure the future,” she said in conclusion.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Q&A: UN Environment Assembly Kicks Off With a Call to Make Peace with Nature
• UN Blueprint that Could Urgently Solve Earth’s Triple Climate Emergencies
• Leveraging AI to Fight Climate Change

The post The Global Insecurity of Climate Change appeared first on Inter Press Service.

It is a milestone for the WHO scheme, which aims to ensure the fair distribution of Covid-19 jabs.

The cause of death is still unknown but a recent cyclone is among the theories being investigated.

Italian club Atalanta, Didier Drogba and Amad Diallo pay tribute to Ivorian player Willy Braciano Ta Bi, who has died aged 21.

Tractor caravan to Mexico City farmer protest demands "Mexico Free of Transgenics". Credit: Enrique Perez S./ANEC

By Timothy A. Wise
CAMBRIDGE MA, Feb 24 2021 (IPS)

Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree to phase out use of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn. His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock. Under NAFTA, the United States has seen a 400% increase in corn exports to Mexico, the vast majority genetically modified yellow dent corn.

The bold policy moves fulfill a campaign promise by Mexico’s populist president, whose agricultural policies have begun to favor Mexican producers, particularly small-scale farmers, and protect consumers alarmed by the rise of obesity and chronic diseases associated with high-fat, high-sugar processed foods.

In banning glyphosate, the decree cites the precautionary principle and the growing body of scientific research showing the dangers of the chemical, the active ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The government had stopped imports of glyphosate since late 2019, citing the World Health Organization’s warning that the chemical is a “probable carcinogen.”

The prohibitions on genetically modified corn, which appear toward the end of the decree, have more profound implications. The immediate ban on permits for cultivation of GM corn formalizes current restrictions, ordered by Mexican courts in 2013 when a citizen lawsuit challenged government permitting of experimental GM corn planting by Monsanto and other multinational seed companies on the grounds of the contamination threat they posed to Mexico’s rich store of native corn varieties. The import ban cites the same environmental threats but goes further, advancing the López Obrador administration’s goals of promoting greater food self-sufficiency in key crops. As the decree states:

“[W]ith the objective of achieving self-sufficiency and food sovereignty, our country must be oriented towards establishing sustainable and culturally adequate agricultural production, through the use of agroecological practices and inputs that are safe for human health, the country’s biocultural diversity and the environment, as well as congruent with the agricultural traditions of Mexico.”

Chronicle of a decree foretold

Such policies should come as no surprise. In his campaign, López Obrador committed to such measures. Unprecedented support from rural voters were critical to his landslide 2018 electoral victory, with his new Movement for National Renewal (Morena) claiming majorities in both houses of Congress.

Still, industry and U.S. government officials seemed shocked that their lobbying had failed to stop López Obrador from acting. The pressure campaign was intense, as Carey Gillam explained in a February 16 Guardian expose on efforts by Bayer/Monsanto, industry lobbyist CropLife, and U.S. government officials to deter the glyphosate ban. According to email correspondence obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through Freedom of Information Act requests, officials in the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture and office of the U.S. Trade Representative were in touch with Bayer representatives and warned Mexican officials that restrictions could be in violation of the revised North American Free Trade Agreement, now rebranded by the Trump Administration as the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).

According to the emails, CropLife president Chris Novak last March sent a letter to Robert Lighthizer, USTR’s ambassador, arguing that Mexico’s actions would be “incompatible with Mexico’s obligations under USMCA.” In May, Lighthizer followed through, writing to Graciela Márquez Colín, Mexico’s minister of economy, warning that GMO crop and glyphosate matters threatened to undermine “the strength of our bilateral relationship.” An earlier communication argued that Mexico’s actions on glyphosate, which Mexico had ceased importing, were “without a clear scientific justification.”

Nothing could be further from the truth, according to Victor Suárez, Mexico’s Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food and Competitiveness. “There is rigorous scientific evidence of the toxicity of this herbicide,” he told me, citing the WHO findings and an extensive literature review carried out by Mexico’s biosafety commission Cibiogem.

And even though most imported U.S. corn is used for animal feed, not direct human consumption, a study carried out by María Elena Álvarez-Buylla, now head of CONACYT, the government’s leading scientific body, documented the presence of GM corn sequences in many of Mexico’s most common foods. Some 90% of tortillas and 82% of other common corn-based foods contained GM corn. Mexico needs to be especially cautious, according to Suárez, because corn is so widely consumed, with Mexicans on average eating one pound of corn a day, one of the highest consumption levels in the world.

While the glyphosate restrictions are based on concerns about human health and the environment, the phaseout of GM corn is justified additionally on the basis of the threat of contamination of Mexico’s native corn varieties and the traditional intercropped milpa. The final article in the decree states the purpose is to contribute “to food security and sovereignty” and to offer “a special measure of protection to native corn.”

The ban on GM corn cultivation has been a longstanding demand ever since the previous administration of Enrique Peña Nieto granted permission to Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and a host of other multinational seed companies to begin experimental planting in northern Mexico. Such permits were halted in 2013 by a Mexico court injunction based on a claim from 53 farmer, consumer and environmental organizations – the self-denominated Demanda Colectiva – that GM corn cultivation threatened to contaminate native varieties of corn through inadvertent cross-pollination.

“It is difficult to imagine a worse place to grow GM corn than Mexico,” said Adelita San Vicente, the lead spokesperson for the plaintiffs who is now working in López Obrador’s environment ministry, when I interviewed her in 2014 for my book, Eating Tomorrow (which includes a chapter on the GM corn issue). Such contamination was well-documented and the courts issued the injunction citing the potential for permanent damage to the environment.

As Judge Walter Arrellano Hobelsberger wrote in a 2014 decision, “The use and enjoyment of biodiversity is the right of present and future generations.”

Mexico’s self-sufficiency campaign

Mexico’s farmer and environmental organizations were quick to praise the decree, though many warned that it is only a first step and implementation will be key. “These are important steps in moving toward ecological production that preserves biodiversity and agrobiodiversity forged by small-scale farmers over millennia,” wrote Greenpeace Mexico and the coalition “Without Corn There is No Country.”

Malin Jonsson of Semillas de Vida (Seeds of Life), one of the plaintiffs in the court case, told me, “This is a first step toward eliminating glyphosate, withdrawing permits for GM maize cultivation and eliminating the consumption of GM maize. To end consumption we have to stop importing GM maize from the United States by increasing Mexico’s maize production.”

Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States. Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. López Obrador’s commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration’s plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops – wheat, rice, beans, and dairy. Mexican farmers have long complained that since NAFTA was enacted in 1994 ultra-cheap U.S. corn has driven down prices for Mexican farmers. The proposed import restrictions would help López Obrador’s “Mexico First” agricultural policies while bringing needed development to rural areas.

Will Biden Administration block action?

Industry organizations on both sides of the border have complained bitterly about the proposed bans. “The import of genetically modified grain from the U.S. is essential for many products in the agrifood chain,” said Laura Tamayo, spokeswoman for Mexico’s National Farm Council (CNA), who is also a regional corporate director for Bayer. Bayer’s agrochemical unit Monsanto makes weedkiller Roundup and the GMO corn designed to be used with the pesticide.

“This decree is completely divorced from reality,” said José Cacho, president of Mexico’s corn industry chamber CANAMI, the 25-company group that includes top corn millers like Gruma, cereal maker Kellogg, and commodity trader Cargill.

Juan Cortina, president of CNA, said his members might sue the government over the bans. “I think there will need to be legal challenges brought by all the people who use glyphosate and genetically-modified corn,” he told Reuters, adding that he also expects U.S. exporters to appeal to provisions of the USMCA trade pact to have the measures declared illegal.

Industry sources also warned that Mexico would never be able to meet its corn needs without U.S. exports and that U.S. farmers would be harmed by the presumed loss of the Mexican export market. Others quickly pointed out that Mexico was not banning U.S. exports, just GM corn exports. U.S. farmers are perfectly capable of producing non-GM corn at comparable prices, according to seed industry sources, so the ruling could encourage the development of a premium market in the United States for non-GMO corn, something U.S. consumers have been demanding for years.

Such pressures may present an early test for President Joe Biden and his nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, whose confirmation hearing is scheduled for February 25. Tai won high marks for helping get stricter labor and environmental provisions into the agreement that replaced NAFTA. Will she and the Biden administration respect Mexico’s sovereign right to enact policies designed to protect the Mexican public and the environment while promoting Mexican rural development?

Victor Suárez certainly hopes so. “Our rationale is based on the precautionary principle in the face of environmental risks as well as the right of the Mexican government to take action in favor of the public good, in important areas such as public health and the environment,” he told me.

“We are a sovereign nation with a democratic government,” he continued, “which came to power with the support of the majority of citizens, one that places compliance with our constitution and respect for human rights above all private interests.”

Timothy A. Wise is a senior advisor with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the author of Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The post Mexico to Ban Glyphosate, GM Corn
Presidential Decree Comes Despite Intense Pressure from Industry, U.S. Authorities appeared first on Inter Press Service.

National civic space ratings from the CIVICUS Monitor, which uses up-to-date information and indicators to assess the state of freedom of association, peaceful assembly and expression for all UN Member States. Credit: CIVICUS Monitor

By Emily Standfield
TORONTO, Canada, Feb 24 2021 (IPS)

A month into Joe Biden’s presidency, the U.S. has rejoined nearly all the multilateral institutions and international commitments that it withdrew from under Trump. These include the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords.

Most recently, on February 8th, the U.S. announced it would also rejoin the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) as an observer. The U.S.’ role in the human rights forum looks different than it did four years ago in light of its recent track record on civil liberties.

The HRC has two primary functions: to draft and adopt new standards for human rights and to conduct investigations into specific human rights issues. In 2018, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. would be leaving the HRC, claiming that it was a barrier to any genuine global human rights protection. The U.S. had two primary grievances.

First, that the HRC has an “unconscionable” and “chronic bias” against Israel. And second, that the HRC’s membership criteria allows chronic human rights abusers to have a seat on the Council. Neither of which are entirely baseless claims.

Israel remains the only country-specific agenda item covered at every HRC meeting and Russia, China, and Eritrea — to name a few — all currently hold seats on the Council and have some of the worst human rights records in the world.

Emily Standfield. Credit: CIVICUS

On Monday, the HRC’s 47 member states met for its 46th session, it’s third time meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The further decline of political and civil rights as enshrined in international law will be an unavoidable hot topic.

The CIVICUS Monitor which rates UN member states’ track records of upholding the legal tenets of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association finds that 30 of the Council’s full member states routinely and severely restrict these rights.

And in the case of its newest observer state, the USA was recently downgraded to the Monitor’s third worst civic space rating of ‘Obstructed’. The body is a long way off from adequately representing its values.

In the case of the USA, the rating change and decline in rights is reflected by the police response to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest movement. During protests in 2020, law enforcement detained thousands of demonstrators, used teargas and projectiles to disperse crowds, and attacked journalists, despite the fact that most wore media credentials.

President Trump and other authority figures encouraged police officers to respond forcefully and, in some cases, requested such violent actions for their own benefit. In a perfect example of this, the Attorney General ordered the use of teargas against peaceful protesters so that President Trump could have a photo-op in front of a church.

While the BLM protests may have made the decline in civic freedoms abundantly clear, this rating change represents a longer deterioration of political and civil rights.

In response, in June the HRC unanimously passed a mandate that called for a report on ‘systemic racism’ targeted at individuals of African descent. Philonise Floyd, the brother of George Floyd, whose murder at the hands of white police officers began the mass protests, called on the human rights body to examine the U.S.’ history of racial injustice and police brutality.

In the end, the final resolution passed by the HRC called for an investigation of systemic racism globally and regrettably did not single out the U.S.

While Biden has rejoined the HRC as an observer, the U.S. must win elections in October 2021 if it wants to regain its seat on the Council. In 2019, Biden said, “American leadership on human rights must begin at home” and — in some ways — it has.

The BLM protests have sparked a degree of state and local level police reform, and Biden has made a commitment to achieving racial equity. While the U.S. should focus on improving freedoms within its borders, it should also not exempt itself from becoming a full member of the HRC again in October.

Former President Barack Obama ran for a seat on the Council because he believed the U.S. could do more to advance human rights as a member of the body. This turned out to be true— the U.S. supported the creation of several important international commissions of inquiry to investigate human rights violations.

If the rationale by Trump was that leaving the council would do more for human rights than holding a seat, it’s clear that this has not come to fruition. Whether it is freedom of speech or the right to peacefully protest, today more of the world’s population lives in ‘Closed’, ‘Repressed’ or ‘Obstructed’ countries as compared to four years ago, finds the CIVICUS Monitor.

Leadership is needed at the UN Human Rights Council on these issues, but it must come from those that have a full seat at the table and have a demonstrated track record of upholding their commitments. The U.S. is currently disqualified on both accounts. Credibility and moral leadership must come from somewhere else.

Instead, the U.S. must support other member states that are leading by example on these issues. Seven members of the HRC — Denmark, Germany, Uruguay, Netherlands, Marshall Islands, and Czechia — are rated ‘Open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, the highest civic space rating a country can achieve.

These countries are adequately representing the values that the HRC is committed to defending. While there are surely other issues at the HRC that the U.S. will prove influential, the country is far from the inspirational example it often likes to present itself on these world stages.

At the current session of the HRC, which began on February 22nd, the U.S. should champion these members who have made meaningful progress on civil liberties and be prepared to take a backseat on issues that it so obviously falls short on.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The post Is the USA Fit to Rejoin the UN Human Rights Council? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

Excerpt:

Emily Standfield is CIVICUS Member and data volunteer.

The post Is the USA Fit to Rejoin the UN Human Rights Council? appeared first on Inter Press Service.

One of Africa's biggest clubs - Zamalek - is accused of 'immoral' and 'merciless' behaviour as it allegedly 'exploited' the contract of a player it no longer wanted.