international organisations

• CSW66: ‘Women need more access to real political decision-making power’

  CIVICUS speaks about women’s rights and the United Nations (UN) Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) with Terry Ince, founder, and convenor of the CEDAW Committee of Trinidad and Tobago (CCoTT), a civil society organisation (CSO) focused on advocacy, education, and public awareness on and for the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

  The CCoTT seeks to ensure the mandates of the CEDAW are upheld and the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women are implemented. To do so, it partners with a wide range of stakeholders in the government, private sector, and civil society.

  

  What do you see as the main women’s rights issues in Trinidad and Tobago?

  On the surface, you see women in high-profile positions in every area of society in Trinidad and Tobago. However, when you scratch beneath the surface, you realise these women are not the real decision makers.

  In 2010 we elected our first woman prime minister. Women make up 38 per cent of the current cabinet. We currently have a woman president for the first time in the history of the country. There are women in the positions of speaker of the House, president of the Senate and Ombudsperson. There are women assisting the Superintendent of Commission of Police. Women lead ministries including trade and industry, planning and development, housing and urban development, public administration, education, gender and child affairs, social development and family services and sports and cultural affairs, and Legal Affairs in the Office of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs. And this is just in the public sector. In politics, you find women on the ballot; political parties actively recruit women to run for political office.

  However, women are still not getting enough support. They certainly do not get the required support to run for political office. They may be selected as candidates, but the road to success is often steep and filled with deterrents. Women candidates are often asked to run in districts their parties find particularly difficult to win, so they are almost guaranteed to lose. Women are running but not necessarily winning. To win, they would need financial and coordination support.

  On top of this, many of these women are often mothers, wives, care givers, so they have additional duties that nobody is helping them with either. They are playing all these roles simultaneously and expected to be successful at all of them. 

  Women need more access to political decision-making power. It is not just about being in the room, but at the table, contributing, being listened to, and having their ideas examined, pushed forward and implemented.

  It is not enough to have a woman on the ballot. It is also not enough to elect a woman without providing an enabling environment which values her unique perspective on issues. 

  There continue to be barriers, but I think women can leverage their positions to make headway. I also think that women can and should support other women more within their capacity.

  How does the CCoTT work to address these issues?

  The CEDAW Committee of Trinidad and Tobago advocates for sustained implementation of CEDAW, a convention that Trinidad and Tobago signed in 1985 and ratified in 1990. More generally, we advocate for women’s development and empowerment. CCoTT’s work is grounded in human rights and CEDAW. We focus on advocacy, public awareness, sensitisation, and education on the Convention, with the overarching mission of achieving the implementation of its mandates and all the recommendations made to the state by CEDAW’s monitoring body.

  CEDAW addresses all aspects of women and development, including political engagement, so we work on the understanding that our government’s obligation is to ensure that the appropriate policies and laws are in place for women to have an equal opportunity to access political office. Our citizens, and particularly women, need to know and understand this. And governments must honour its responsibility for having signed this Convention and held accountable. Achieving substantive equality is the goal and CCoTT collaborates with stakeholders to achieve that goal.

  So, among other things, we campaign to improve female participation and representation at all levels of governance. We focus on preparing women to claim those spaces and offer training for female candidates. We collaborate – locally, regionally, and globally – with other organisations to bring good global practices to women in Trinidad and Tobago. For example, we have collaborated with the Women’s Human Rights Institute to bring CEDAW training to Trinidad and Tobago.

  What issues did you try to bring into the CSW agenda this year? 

  Not only did we bring the issues I just mentioned, but also climate-related issues – the climate crisis, disasters, and risk mitigation. This was the first time that CSW focused on the nexus between women’s empowerment and climate change, climate justice and disaster management. As a Caribbean country, we are acutely aware of the impacts of climate change and disaster, as we have recently witnessed a volcanic eruption in St Vincent and the Grenadines and floods in Dominica and other countries, which wiped-out whole communities.

  In Trinidad and Tobago, we have seen unprecedented levels of flooding. How are women prepared for this? How are women empowered to navigate these kinds of crises when they occur? How are we ensuring that girls’ and women’s needs are addressed appropriately? For example, when disaster hits, how do you ensure their safety in shelters? Do your emergency kits include menstrual products? Who is thinking about these things? These are the kinds of questions we are bringing to the table. Therefore, it is so important that women have a voice when decisions around these issues are made.

  We also need to assess how emergencies are managed after the initial cause has been assessed – because the fact that a volcanic eruption has ended, for example, does not mean everything goes back to normal. What happened to the communities most impacted by the eruption? How are they coping? We must rethink the mechanisms we use to ensure people get back on their feet.

  What were your expectations, and to what degree were they met?

  Fortunately, we were able to have meaningful discussions of all these issues at this year’s CSW. CCoTT hosted a parallel event examining women’s empowerment in times of crises – climate crisis and Covid-19.

  Our expectations included gaining access to a wide variety of discussions, hosted by other Caribbean and Latin American countries as well as cross-sectional discussions with countries from other parts of the world – because climate change and climate justice impacts all of us, and we all need to understand this. If something is happening in Latvia, for example, it does not mean it may not happen in Trinidad. We can learn from how the issue is/was addressed in Latvia. Whatever the climate action is, we can use it as a mitigating factor to prevent or better manage adverse effects. 

  Were you able to participate fully, or did you experience any access issues?

  The virtual nature of this year’s CSW made it possible for more people and CSOs to attend. It was different from past editions because there were none of the usual barriers involved in getting visas, traveling to the USA, and gaining access to the UN’s headquarters – which you cannot do if you are not an organisation accredited to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

  Those barriers were eliminated this year. From this perspective, virtuality made it much more accessible. CSW66 opened many doors and raised several questions that now must be answered. The UN should assess its own barriers to women’s access, such as the need to have ECOSOC accreditation to get inside UN headquarters during CSW.

  Because CSW66 was virtual, participants had the opportunity to hear about different solutions, network with global peers, learn from their stories and share globally what is occurring in Trinidad and Tobago and how we have successfully addressed issues at a local level. In this regard, CSW66 met my expectations.

  However, having access to high-level discussions was not easy. Even though they were virtual. Often this required registration which closed at certain number of attendees. Time zones were also a challenge. Events hosted by countries that are 12 hours ahead required some creativity. These were specific challenges of a virtual event, which would normally not be an issue during in-person gathering.

  Overall, it was remarkably successful. If it continues to be virtual, we will learn how to navigate the challenges based on this years’ experience.

  Do you think that international bodies, and specifically the UN, adequately integrate women into their decision-making processes?

  In 2020 the UN acknowledged it was behind in terms of women’s integration in leadership and aggressively implemented changes. However, in 2021, when it had the opportunity, a woman was not elected as its Secretary-General, despite qualified candidates. 

  With recognition comes responsibility. Global eyes are on the UN, so it needs to set an example throughout its bodies, divisions, and units. However, as I already said, just selecting women is not the answer. We also hear ‘get youth more involved,’ but young people should be prepared, mentored, encouraged, and supported. Similarly, we need to help women along the way and ensure that when they occupy a space where they can contribute, their contributions are valued. The gap is shrinking.

  This is a work in progress, and the UN is trying. One way to ensure this happens properly is to involve civil society more – and not just lawyers or PhD holders. Learning does not only occur in the classroom. Application takes place on the ground in communities often led by community organisers or members of organisations. We need the academics collaborating with the community and others to strengthen capacities. Making room for grassroots, women and youth led initiatives. In this regard, there is more work to be done.

  Civic space in Trinidad and Tobago is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor. 
  Get in touch with the CEDAW Committee of Trinidad and Tobago through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@CCoT_T on Twitter. 

• DRC: ‘The United Nations’ peacekeeping mission has failed’

  CIVICUS speaks about the ongoing protests against the United Nations (UN) Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), MONUSCO, with social activists Espoir Ngalukiye and Sankara Bin Kartumwa.

  Espoir and Sankara are members of LUCHA (Lutte Pour Le Changement), a civil society organisation (CSO) that advocates for human dignity and social justice in the DRC. It has played a role in peaceful protests against MONUSCO.

  

  What triggered the anti-MONUSCO protests?

  The eastern region of the DRC has faced security issues for over three decades. People are protesting for MONUSCO to leave because its strategy to maintain peace has failed.

  MONUSCO was deployed to restore peace in the DRC by protecting civilians, facilitating safe electoral processes and fighting rebel groups. But it has been in the country for close to 20 years and the opposite has happened: the number of armed groups has risen, people continue to live in unsafe conditions and innocent lives are being lost despite the presence of MONUSCO.

  It was the peacekeeping mission’s job to prevent that happening, but it has not served us diligently and has proven to be useless. Right now, extremely high levels of violence are causing many people to migrate in search of safety. This alone is evidence enough that the peacekeeping mission has failed.

  Many people in local communities do not have a good relationship with MONUSCO because they believe the mission has not taken up its role to protect them. Civilians’ lack of trust, in turn, makes it challenging for MONUSCO to carry out its mandate. But if it was effective, people would not be protesting against it.

  How have the authorities responded to protesters’ demands?

  The immediate response has been violence by both MONUSCO and the Congolese authorities. We have seen people injured and killed just because they were part of the protests. People are angry because security issues have been ongoing for years, and MONUSCO should have seen this coming: it was only a matter of time before people started acting on their anger towards the mission. MONUSCO should have come up with ways to deal with the situation without people having to lose their lives. 

  As for the Congolese authorities, they have arrested people unlawfully. Most people who have been detained are facing terrible conditions in prison and our concern is that they all get justice. We do not want them to be tortured for fighting for their rights.

  The UN Secretary-General has condemned the violence and called for the Congolese government to investigate it. But the demand for MONUSCO’s departure has not been addressed, and protesters say they will not stop demonstrating until MONUSCO leaves.

  Unfortunately, the Congolese authorities have not addressed our concerns either. From our standpoint, they will be the next to be targeted because they have been elected and are paid to protect us. If they cannot live up to their responsibilities, we will hold them accountable. They must join their voice to ours and ask MONUSCO to leave.

  What is civil society in general, and LUCHA in particular, doing to help improve the situation?

  LUCHA is a CSO that advocates for change in a non-violent manner. We have tried to show people it is possible to advocate for change without using violence. Our members have participated in protests against MONUSCO, which we believe are legitimate and constitutional, so we also demand non-violence and respect for the law on the government’s part. Our country has a violent history, and we would like to change that narrative.

  We are an organisation led by young people who have experienced war and conflict and want to see a better society emerge, and a better future for all. We struggle for Congolese people and their right to have access to basic needs, starting with living in a safe environment. We have members on the ground in the areas where the protests are happening, and their role is to monitor the situation and report on the events taking place.

  LUCHA is using our social media accounts to inform people in and outside the DRC about the situation and how it is impacting on so many innocent lives. We hope this will create awareness and push the authorities to address our demands.

  Our monitors on the ground also work to ensure protesters do not employ violence, but this has proven to be a challenge because most people are tired and at this point they are willing to do whatever it takes to get MONUSCO to leave, even if it means using violence.

  What should the international community do to help?

  The international community has been hypocritical and has always prioritised their own needs. It is unfortunate that the recent events are happening in a mineral-rich area of our country. Many powerful people have interests there and are willing to do anything to ensure they are protected. That is why so few countries are speaking up against what is happening.

  Geography also puts us at a disadvantage. Maybe if we were Ukraine our voices would have mattered but we are the DRC, and international players only care about our resources and not our people. But the people who are getting killed in the DRC are human beings who have families and lives and dreams just like the ones being killed in Ukraine.

  The international community must understand that we need peace and security, and that MONUSCO has failed to deliver and needs to leave our country. It must listen to the voice of the people who are sovereign. Listening to the people will be the only way to stop the protests. Trying to stop them any other way will lead to more violence and more deaths.

  Civic space in the DRC is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with LUCHA through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@luchaRDC on Twitter. 

• EAST AFRICA: ‘The pipeline project would open up critical ecosystems to commercial oil exploitation’

  CIVICUS speaks about the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project and its potential impacts on the climate and on the health and livelihoods of local communities with Omar Elmawi, coordinator of the Stop the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (#StopEACOP).

  #StopEACOP is a global online campaign that seeks to raise awareness of the effects of the project and calls for its cancellation.

  What is EACOP, and what is wrong with it?

  EACOP is a project to extract and transport crude oil from Uganda to Tanzania, led by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and French energy conglomerate TotalEnergies alongside the Uganda National Oil Company and Tanzania Petroleum Development Cooperation.

  If it goes on, EACOP would have disastrous consequences for local communities, for wildlife and for the entire planet. In other words, it will affect humans, nature and climate. It threatens to displace thousands of families and farmers from their land. It poses significant risks to water resources and wetlands in both Uganda and Tanzania – including the Lake Victoria basin, which over 40 million people rely on for drinking water and food production.

  Additionally, EACOP would increase the severity of the global climate emergency by transporting oil that, when burned, will generate over 34 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year. The pipeline would also open up critical ecosystems in the landlocked regions of Central and Eastern Africa to commercial oil exploitation.

  It would also rip through numerous sensitive biodiversity hotspots and risk significantly degrading several nature reserves crucial to the preservation of threatened species, including elephants, lions and chimpanzees.

  How are you mobilising against EACOP?

  Civil society came together under a global campaign that we have called #StopEACOP, aimed at sharing news related to the pipeline project and distributing resources to help people organise and take action against it.

  #StopEACOP is led by an alliance of local groups and communities and African and global civil society organisations (CSOs). Over 260 CSOs have endorsed it and are working towards realising the campaign’s objectives through public mobilisation, legal action, research, shareholder activism and media advocacy.

  Since environmental licences have been awarded for the pipeline and associated oil fields in Kingfisher and Tilenga, several cases have been filed against the EACOP pipeline, including at the East African Court of Justice and in French courts against TotalEnergies, under the duty of vigilance law.

  We hope that our campaign will put enough pressure on the companies and governments involved so that they will put an end to the pipeline project and prioritise the wellbeing of people and the environment.

  How have the governments involved responded to the #StopEACOP campaign?

  The governments of both Tanzania and Uganda are committed to seeing this project through despite the fact that each will receive only 15 per cent of the proceeds from the crude oil going through the pipeline. TotalEnergies and CNOOC hold 70 per cent of the pipeline’s shares, so they will be the ones pocketing 70 per cent of the proceeds from crude oil.

  Additionally, TotalEnergies and CNOOC both get tax benefits, including a waiver on payment of corporate tax for 10 years once the pipeline becomes operational and on the value-added tax on imported products and materials needed for the pipeline. They are required to pay only five per cent in withholding tax instead of the required 15 per cent.

  We haven’t stopped trying to engage the Tanzanian and Ugandan governments, although some of our members, and especially community partners, have been arrested and detained, had their offices raided or been threatened with the deregistration of their organisations. The government has had a part to play in most if not all these challenges, but we have continued to engage and use all legal mechanisms and processes available to make sure our community partners are protected.

  What kind of support do you need from international civil society and the wider international community?

  Allied organisations, activists and regular people are welcome to visit our website and click on our action page, which suggests a variety of actions addressed at the companies involved and governments and their funders and insurers. Please take as many of the actions listed as you can, prioritising those targeting insurance companies and banks. This is key because the EACOP project will need multi-billion-dollar loans to proceed, as well as numerous insurance policies covering every component of the project.

  People can also donate to the cause. All the resources we receive are shared with our community partners and support any security and legal needs that may arise, including legal representation fees.

  You can follow us on our social media pages to get updates on the campaign and subscribe to receive email updates on the progress of the campaign and upcoming actions that you can endorse or take part in.

  Civic space in bothTanzania andUganda is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with #StopEACOP through itswebsite or its Facebook and Instagram pages,and follow @stopEACOP on Twitter. 

• EUROPE: ‘Delays in dealing with gender-based violence cost women, children and LGBTQI+ people their lives’

  As part of the #16DaysOfActivism campaign, CIVICUS speaks about civil society efforts to eradicate gender-based violence (GBV) with Eliana Jimeno and Charlotte Cramer of Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE).

  Founded in 1994, WAVE is a network of organisations from across Europe working to prevent GBV and protect women and children from violence.

  The 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence is an annual international campaign that kicks off on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and runs until 10 December, Human Rights Day.

  What work does WAVE do?

  WAVE is a network of 160 women’s rights civil society organisations (CSOs) working against GBV in European countries. Most of these organisations provide specialised services such as shelters, rape crisis centres and helplines. Some are umbrella organisations that include among their membership groups delivering specialist services to women, while others focus more specifically on research and data collection, and yet others focus on advocacy and campaigning for better legislation at the national level and at the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN).

  WAVE’s work focuses on three main areas: advocacy, capacity building and data collection. Regarding our advocacy work, we lobby and campaign for better legislation to help fight GBV against women. WAVE is pushing for women’s specialist services all over Europe to be better funded so more women have access to specialist support.

  We also focus on capacity building. We provide training for our members so they are better equipped to support women and children exposed to violence. We do this through webinars, conferences and mutual learning exchanges.

  We collect data on women’s specialist support services in the 46 countries we operate in and analyse it to identify gaps in the implementation of the Istanbul Convention – the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.

  What challenges have you faced?

  We have faced several challenges. The main one has been dealing with the strong anti-gender movement pushing to block theaccession of the EU to the Istanbul Convention. Because of the backlash, we have seen governments trying to get away with implementing it only partially, as in the case of Poland, or just completelywalking out, as in the case of Turkey.

  Anti-gender movements frame their narrative in ways that put feminist CSOs and institutions advancing women’s, children’s and LGBTQI+ people’s rights under threat. At a country level, they argue that women’s rights organisations challenge the ‘traditional values’ of the family, for example by demanding access to accessible contraception, or claim they are exposing kids to ‘harmful’ information – a reference to comprehensive sexuality education – in schools. There are also security challenges. Many of our members work in hostile environments and some have been threatened for challenging governments and holding them accountable.

  We also face issues regarding data collection and systematisation. Data is collected and codified in different ways in different EU countries, so it is very difficult to collect and compare information regarding women support services, access to sexual and reproductive rights or education. There is no standardised way of tracking GBV cases in Europe – particularly femicide, for which there is no common definition – so we are constantly trying to adapt to collect the data required to advance the rights of women, girls and LGBTQI+ people more effectively.

  A positive challenge is weaving our network together. We represent 160 organisations in 46 European countries, some of which are themselves umbrella organisations, which means we are talking about some 1,600 organisations. There is a lot of diversity within our membership, and this creates complexities when it comes to balancing what brings us together as feminist CSOs and our different perspectives due to our different national contexts.

  What have you planned for the 16 Days of Activism campaign?

  We have released astatement on femicides, one of the main topics of the campaign. We are also emphasising the need to adopt a standardised definition of femicide throughout Europe to better monitor the evolution of the phenomenon and push for the design and implementation of better policies to tackle it. We want to push key stakeholders to act right now, as every delay costs women, children and LGBTQI+ people their lives.

  On 8 March,International Women’s Day 2022, the European Commission presented aproposal for a directive to combat violence against women and domestic violence. The draft that was put forward, which resulted from consultations with selected CSOs, is rooted in a criminal law approach and fails to recognise GBV and domestic violence as human rights violations. It is also reactive, focusing on how states should act when violence has already happened rather than on preventing it happening in the first place. During the 16 days of Activism, we will campaign for a directive that enables victims of GBV and domestic violence to exercise their human rights. 

  We also plan on having webinars and releasing podcasts to highlight the problem of GBV in Europe, the intersectional harm it causes and the need for better legislation and practices to fight it. Our expectation is that the podcast and webinars will help us reach a larger audience. We will also focus on how the media can tackle GBV through a more sensitive approach.

  Additionally, WAVE has prepared a toolkit to make advocacy and campaigning more accessible to young people. The toolkit will serve as a resource to empower them and help them raise their own voices and run their own campaigns in a meaningful, sustainable and creative way.

  What should international bodies, particularly the UN, do to contribute to eradicating GBV?

  The UN has opened the space for specific conversations to take place on women’s rights, for example on the link between violence against women and child custody procedures. This has been really helpful because feminist CSOs all over the world run programmes and projects and provide specialist services for victims and survivors of violence with very limited resources. They seldom have the resources or logistics capacity to play such a global convening role. WAVE is one example of women’s grassroots organisations seeking to host conversations at a European level, but we are not a global network.

  In contrast, the anti-gender movement has a lot of funding as well as a global footing. To be able to compete, we must work extra hard and are still at a disadvantage. So, by bringing in its resources for convening, supporting the work of feminist CSOs and data collection, the UN can to some extent help level the playing field.

  In many countries the space for civil society is shrinking, and the UN can play a key role in creating the platforms where we, as feminist CSOs, can have these very important conversations, instead of just giving the space to national governments that are disseminating narratives not reflective of the experiences of survivors of GBV.

  Further, we hope accountability will move at the centre of the UN’s work. The UN must hold perpetrators accountable to stop the culture of impunity, including UN staff, such as soldiers serving in UN peacekeeping operations. The UN must send a strong message that it does not tolerate GBV.

  Finally, we hope that world leaders, governments, international institutions and CSOs will genuinely and meaningfully work together and take an intersectional approach to achieve the SDGs for world justice and leave no one behind.

  ---

   Get in touch with WAVE through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@WAVE_europe on Twitter.

• EUROPEAN MEDIA FREEDOM ACT: ‘It will be crucial for EU member states to take this legal framework seriously’

  CIVICUS speaks with Renate Schroeder, Director of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), about theEuropean Media Freedom Act, the first integrated legislation that protects freedom of expression and media independence and pluralism in the European Union.

  The EFJ is the largest organisation of journalists in Europe, fighting for decent working conditions and defending the right to freedom of expression.

  Why was the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) needed?

  The European Commission (EC) produced the draft EMFA in September 2022, in a context of growing disinformation and threats to media independence and journalists’ safety across Europe. The Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency, Věra Jourová, understood the dangers of media capture and political manipulation. With her help and a lot of research by European institutions, we were able to show media freedom was declining in the European Union (EU), despite the bloc’s historical commitment to this principle.

  That’s why the EC came up with a proposal to ensure the right of all citizens to receive plural and editorially independent information. This had never been formally addressed before. The EMFA is rooted in the need to create clear rules to level the playing field across the EU, addressing issues such as media capture, the independence of public service media, editorial independence, transparency in media ownership and state advertisement.

  What regulations does the EMFA introduce?

  The EMFA seeks to safeguard media freedom and integrity. It includes provisions to protect journalistic sources, ensuring confidentiality. This is particularly crucial for investigative journalism given the growing use of spyware to target journalists’ sources, as seen in countries such as Greece and Hungary.

  The Act also addresses state control over public service media. Rather than state broadcasters, what the ecosystem needs is independent, strong, public service media systems free of state influence or control over funding.

  In addition, the EMFA recognises readers’ right to know who’s behind what they read, so it includes an article on transparency in media ownership and another on editorial independence to prevent journalism being used for political or economic interests or propaganda. This is based on the acknowledgment there are people such as politicians or foreign business leaders who own media outlets and use them for their agendas. They don’t view journalism as a public good but as a tool for propaganda.

  Another issue the Act deals with is content moderation. Journalists are no longer the gatekeepers of information – platforms are. Recognising this, the EMFA requires platforms to consult media service providers and journalists before removing content.

  Finally, the Act establishes a board composed of independent regulatory authorities tasked with overseeing compliance with the EMFA and other related legislation such as the Audiovisual Media Service Directive.

  What were the main points of contention during the process?

  At the beginning, several stakeholders were against the EMFA. Germany raised one significant point of contention. It has a federal system where states have their own independent regulatory media systems, and they were concerned about potential interference from Brussels.

  Publishers also presented a challenge. They showed little interest in any transparency or editorial regulation and had concerns about a European board having a say on that.

  However, with the support of a group of media freedom organisations, digital rights advocates and other civil society groups, we overcame most of these obstacles. While the initial draft was not as good as we would have liked, the European Parliament emerged as our ally and helped strengthen transparency rules and reinforce provisions related to public media service and source protection.

  One particularly contentious issue during negotiations with both the European Parliament and European Council was the protection of sources and safeguards against spyware. Some states, such as France, argued for exemptions based on national security considerations. These risked compromising the protection of journalists’ sources and transforming the EMFA into a surveillance tool. Thanks to efforts of supportive countries such as Spain, these proposals were rejected, preserving the EMFA’s integrity.

  Does the final draft fully address civil society concerns?

  While the final draft addresses some concerns raised by civil society, there are areas where our partners feel it could have gone further.

  For instance, on the issue of transparency of media ownership, civil society groups wanted to establish a European database, but this provision didn’t go through. We also wanted to include a stronger article addressing concentration of media ownership and requiring a public interest test for mergers. The language in the final agreement is often too principled, which may cause problems when implemented at the national level.

  Even so, we understand that drafting regulations at the European level, where you deal with multiple and diverse states, is not easy. The current rise of right-wing governments is only making it harder. Even traditionally supportive states such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden have been cautious in their approaches.

  We knew it was now or never, so we are very happy the EMFA got adopted, even if some articles are not worded as strongly as we would have liked. With right-wing movements on the rise, there was a lot of pressure to agree a final text and have it passed right away, even if it wasn’t perfect, because the June European Parliament elections will likely result in a more right-wing Parliament.

  What happens next?

  The next step is for the European Parliament’s Plenary session in Strasbourg on 11 March to formally vote on the provision agreement, which the Council of the EU under the current Belgian presidency will officially adopt. The Act needs a three-fourths majority, and only Hungary is certain to vote against. It will enter into force a year afterwards, with some articles taking effect earlier, at six months, and others later, at 15 months. And then it will get implemented and have direct effects at the national level.

  There will likely be a testing period in which civil society and journalists’ organisations will play a vital role in ensuring effective implementation and taking legal action if necessary. For instance, if media providers fail to comply with transparency rules, civil society may need to challenge them in court.

  However, it is still unclear how this process will work. For instance, if a civil society organisation in Hungary believes there’s a lack of plural access to media and decides to take legal action, it may face challenges in Hungary’s judicial system and may need to escalate the issue to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, a process that could take several years.

  I am also worried about how the article on the protection of sources will be implemented. Even though safeguards are in place, this article may be misinterpreted. At the end of the day, national security issues are always defined at the national level. That’s a limitation of all EU treaties and some states may end up finding clever ways to circumvent these protections.

  Having this legal framework in place is a big step forward, but it will also be crucial for states to take it seriously.

  Over the last five years, the EC has made significant progress in regulating the information ecosystem, with initiatives such as the Digital Service Act, Digital Markets Act, Artificial Intelligence Act and now the EMFA. The main challenge will be the effective implementation of all these measures. We hope the EC will prioritise implementation and sanction states that fail to comply. We also hope the EMFA will receive sufficient funding for the board to deal with monitoring and implementing it. Without proper enforcement, no regulation will be of any help.

  What further reforms are needed?

  We are worried about the use of generative AI to promote disinformation and deep fakes. Voluntary guidelines are not enough. We need stronger measures that balance freedom of expression with human control over AI systems. While AI can be a great tool for journalists it can also be misused.

  The EU is at a crossroads. The European Parliament has always been on the side of media freedom, and for the first time we risk losing this support. Young voters will play a vital role in the upcoming elections. Their engagement, informed vote and understanding of the role of the EU and what is at stake may change the course of the elections. And for that facts are needed, and a healthy information ecosystem with limited disinformation circulating in social media.

  ---

  Get in touch with the European Federation of Journalists through itswebsite orInstagram andFacebook pages, and follow@EFJEUROPE and@renatemargot on Twitter.

• GABON: ‘Civic space and the conditions for the exercise of human rights were difficult under the former regime’

  CIVICUS discusses the military coup in Gabon with Georges Mpaga, National Executive President of the Network of Free Civil Society Organisations of Gabon (ROLBG).

  Over the past decade, ROLBG has focused on enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture and arbitrary detention. It advocates to improve civic space in Gabon and Central Africa and campaigns on inhumane detention conditions.

  What’s your opinion on Gabon’s recent elections and subsequent military coup?

  The 26 August elections were undoubtedly fraudulent, as were the previous ones. The regime led by predatory dictator Ali Bongo had banned international and domestic observer missions and international media. ROLBG was the only organisation that carried out citizen observation through the parallel vote tabulation system. Because of Bongo’s despotic will, the election was held under totally irregular conditions, in flagrant violation of international norms and standards. The vote count was held behind closed doors, in an opaque context that allowed for large-scale electoral fraud and falsified results.

  On 30 August 2023, the salutary intervention of the defence and security forces put an end to this aberration. For me, as someone from civil society, what has just happened in Gabon is by no means a military coup; it is quite simply a military intervention led by patriots within the army, under the leadership of General Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, that put an end to a 56-year imposture, a predatory system and an infernal cycle of rigged elections often punctuated by massive human rights violations. This is our reading of the situation, and it is the general opinion of the Gabonese people, who have just been freed from a criminal dictatorship and oligarchy.

  Why has military intervention taken place now, after so many years of Bongo family rule?

  The military intervention on 30 August was justified as a response to the desire shown by the Bongo clan and its Gabonese Democratic Party to remain in power by will or by force, through fraudulent elections and police repression orchestrated by the defence and security forces, which were instrumentalised and took orders from the former president.

  The Gabonese armed forces intervened to avert a bloodbath and replace the Bongo regime: an unrelenting regime that was ruthless towards the Gabonese people, tainted by clientelist relationships, shady business deals, predatory corruption and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, all sanctioned by fraudulent elections.

  In this sense, the coup in Gabon is not part of a regional trend, but the result of a purely internal process resulting from 56 years of dictatorship and its corollary of human rights violations and the destruction of the country’s economic and social fabric. However, the events underway in Gabon obviously have repercussions in the Central African region, home to some of the worst of Africa’s dictatorships.

  What’s your perspective on international criticism of the coup?

  Civil society welcomed the military intervention because it sounded the death knell for more than half a century of deceit and predation at the top of the state. Without this intervention, we would have witnessed an unprecedented tragedy.

  The Gabonese army, under the leadership of the Committee for the Transition and Restoration of Institutions (CTRI), the military junta in power, allowed the country to escape a tragedy with incalculable consequences. Seen in this light, the military should be celebrated as heroes. As soon as he took power, General Oligui set about uniting a country that had been deeply divided and traumatised by such a long time of calamitous management by the Bongo family and the mafia interests around them.

  The attitude of the international community is unacceptable to civil society, human rights defenders and the people of Gabon, who have long paid a heavy price. In 2016, when Bongo planned and carried out an electoral coup followed by atrocities against civilians who opposed the electoral masquerade, the international community remained silent, leaving Gabon’s civilians to face their executioner. In view of this, we categorically reject the declarations of the international community, in particular the Economic Community of Central African States and the African Union, two institutions that have encouraged the manipulation of constitutions and presidencies for life in Central Africa.

  What were conditions like for civil society under Bongo family rule? Do you think there is any chance that the situation will now improve?

  Civic space and the conditions for exercising democratic freedoms and human rights were difficult under the former regime. The rights of association, peaceful assembly and expression were flouted. Many civil society activists and human rights defenders, including myself, spent time in prison or were deprived of their fundamental rights.

  With the establishment of the transitional regime, we are now seeing fundamental change towards an approach that is generally favourable to civil society. The new authorities are working in concert with all the nation’s driving forces, including civil society, which was received on 1 September by General Oligui and his CTRI peers, and I was the facilitator of that meeting. The transitional president, who was sworn in on 4 September, took to work to restore state institutions, human rights and democratic freedoms, and to respect Gabon’s national and international commitments. A strong signal was given on 5 September, with the gradual release of prisoners of conscience, including the leader of Gabon’s largest civil service union confederation, Jean Remi Yama, after 18 months of arbitrary detention.

  ---

  Civic space in Gabon is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Georgesthrough hisFacebook page and follow@gmpaga on Twitter.

  The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.

• GEORGIA: ‘The foreign agents law poses a threat to the vibrancy and autonomy of civil society’

  CIVICUS speaks with Nino Samkharadze, policy analyst at the Georgian Institute of Politics, about thecontroversial ‘foreign agents’ law just passed in Georgia.

  The Georgian Institute of Politics is a Tbilisi-based non-profit, non-partisan research and analysis organisation dedicated to fortifying the foundations of democratic institutions and effective governance in Georgia.

  What’s the purpose of Georgia’s law on foreign agents?

  According to the government, the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, which has just been passed by parliament, aims to increase the transparency of civil society’s operations by requiring civil society organisations (CSOs) to disclose their sources of funding and provide details about the nature of their activities.

  In its transition from the post-Soviet era, Georgia faces economic and political challenges. Its evolving democracy is characterised by weak institutions and it’s heavily dependent on support from international sources, including financial grants from the European Union (EU), European states and the USA. The introduction of this law may have been a response to concerns about foreign influence, but it has sparked debate in Georgian society. It poses a threat to the independence and security of CSOs. Its vague language and broad room for interpretation provide the government with opportunities to influence and control civil society, potentially stifling dissenting voices and undermining the positive contributions of CSOs to democratic governance.

  Why did the government reintroduce the bill after failing to pass it last year?

  The process began with the introduction of a first version of the bill in February 2023. It wasn’t proposed directly by the ruling Georgian Dream party but by People’s Power, a splinter political group closely linked to Georgian Dream and espousing even more radical anti-western narratives. But it was met with considerable domestic and international opposition. Protests erupted in Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, and criticism came from European institutions and the US government. In response, Georgian Dream announced it would vote against the bill, which ultimately led to its rejection by parliament. Following this failure, Georgian Dream underwent a period of reflection and intensified its propaganda. It softened the bill’s language and tone to make it appear less radical and reintroduced it in April 2024. Soon after, on 14 May, it was passed by parliament.

  Georgian Dream came to power in 2012 and is now in an unprecedented third term in office. Since it began its third term in 2020, it has increasingly shown anti-democratic tendencies. With a general election scheduled for October 2024, it’s under increasing pressure as polls indicate a decline in public support. If it doesn’t maintain its majority, it will have to seek cooperation from opposition parties. In this context, the government may see the passage of this law as a way to defuse opposition and strengthen its grip on power.

  How do you think the law would affect civil society?

  The impacts of the law on civil society are expected to be significant and multifaceted, affecting various dimensions of its functioning and autonomy.

  CSOs are likely to be negatively labelled as serving the interests of foreign powers, undermining public confidence in their activities and missions. This labelling could easily lead to stigmatisation and marginalisation, reducing the effectiveness of advocacy efforts and diminishing their influence in the public sphere.

  The law’s provisions for extensive monitoring also pose a threat to the autonomy of CSOs and the privacy of their staff. The government’s ability to access and publish personal data, including correspondence and communications, could hamper CSOs’ ability to operate freely and investigate cases of corruption and human rights abuses.

  Further, the ambiguity of the law leaves room for interpretation and potential abuse by the government. Similar to the situation in Russia, where laws targeting ‘foreign agents’ have been used to restrict civil society activities, the vague language of the law could allow for further restrictions on CSOs and their ability to operate independently.

  The law may also lead to a withdrawal of funding from international foundations and donors. Given the increased risks and restrictions on civil society activities, donors may be reluctant to continue supporting organisations in Georgia, further limiting the resources available for democracy and state-building efforts.

  Overall, the draft law poses a threat to the vibrancy and autonomy of Georgian civil society. It undermines the essential role CSOs play in promoting democratic values, defending human rights and holding the government to account. It could have far-reaching consequences for Georgia’s democratic development and its relationship with the international community.

  How has civil society reacted?

  Georgian civil society has vehemently opposed the bill, seeing it as a dangerous step towards authoritarianism. This law poses a threat to critical voices and raises fears of further concentration of power in the hands of the ruling elite, as has happened in Belarus and Russia.

  No wonder the bill is also often referred to as the ‘Russian law’ – it’s seen as a precursor to outcomes similar to those seen in Russia. It’s feared that dissenting voices will be marginalised or silenced under this law, mirroring the situation in Russia where government critics often face persecution or exile. Given the consolidation of the ruling party and the erosion of democratic principles in Russia, there are concerns in Georgia that the ruling party is also seeking to consolidate power and stifle dissent. Despite some differences between both legal texts, the broader implications for democracy and civil liberties are deeply worrying.

  Georgian society, known for its pro-European and pro-democracy stance, has taken to the streets to protest against this threat. International partners, including the EU and the USA, have also criticised the law and stressed the importance of upholding democratic values.

  How has the government responded to the protests?

  The government’s response to the mass protests has been one of dismissal, demonisation and repression.

  The government has tried to discredit the protesters, particularly younger people, by suggesting they are uninformed about the law and are being manipulated. However, this is contradicted by the fact that many of the protesters, many of whom are students, are well educated and have a clear understanding of the issues at stake.

  The government has also resorted to tactics of repression and intimidation, with reports of regular arrests, beatings and pressure on people associated with the protests. Civil servants, including teachers and academics, have been threatened with the loss of their jobs if they are found to be involved in the protests. This has a chilling effect and discourages dissent.

  CSOs have been targeted with demonisation campaigns that portray them as enemies of the country. While there has been no immediate closure or direct pressure on these organisations, the hostile rhetoric and stigmatisation contribute to an environment of fear and intimidation.

  This authoritarian approach reflects a concerted effort to stifle dissent and maintain control, even at the expense of democratic principles and human rights. It threatens to further undermine confidence in institutions and exacerbate social and political tensions.

  How can the international community best support Georgian civil society?

  The international community can play a crucial role in supporting Georgian civil society at this difficult time.

  High-level visits and engagement by representatives of the EU and the USA are essential. We hope they’ll lead to tangible measures to hold accountable those members of Georgian Dream who supported this law. This could include the introduction of targeted sanctions against people responsible for undermining democratic principles. In addition, the EU should use Georgia’s official status as a candidate for EU membership to impose conditions of adherence to democratic norms and respect for human rights. Sanctions or other forms of pressure could be imposed if these principles are violated.

  It’s also crucial that the EU and the USA continue to demonstrate their unwavering support for Georgia and its pro-European aspirations. Financial assistance and political support are essential to strengthen civil society and maintain momentum in the struggle for democracy. Without this support, civil society risks being further marginalised and weakened by the government.

  A combination of diplomatic pressure, conditionality and unwavering support from the international community is needed to support Georgian civil society in its struggle for democracy and human rights.

  ---

  Civic space in Georgia is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the Georgian Institute of Politics through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@GIP_ge and@nincavar10 on Twitter.

• GHANA: ‘The ‘anti-gay’ bill will have far-reaching consequences if we do not fight it now’

  CIVICUS speaks with Danny Bediako, founder and executive director of Rightify Ghana, about the LGBTQI+ rights situation and the significance of Ghana’s ‘anti-gay’ bill. Rightify Ghana is a human rights organisation that advocates for community empowerment and human rights, and documents and reports human rights abuses in Ghana.

  What are the aims of Rightify Ghana?

  Rightify Ghana was formed because LGBTQI+ organisations were all based in the capital, Accra. Living in Kumasi, in the Ashanti region in Ghana, I felt that I had to do something, so I brought together some people I knew and urged them to reach out to others. We all came together and formed Rightify Ghana. 

  We do advocacy work and report and document human rights violations. We contribute to capacity building through community empowerment activities, including human rights education and sensitisation on safety and security. While as an organisation we do not directly offer sexual health or HIV/AIDS-related services, we facilitate access to them for the people who reach out to us.

  We have become a widely known organisation, with people reaching out for information and referrals to certain services. We also offer psychosocial support to people facing various forms of abuse and human rights violations. We undertake media monitoring to understand how the media reports on LGBTQI+ matters and identify rising challenges, and particularly security threats, to inform and educate the LGBTQI+ community.

  What are the major challenges facing LGBTQI+ people in Ghana?

  For several years the LGBTQI+ community has been targeted by homophobic people, both from state institutions and non-state groups and individuals. But there isn’t enough awareness on these issues, so we usually have to deal with them by ourselves. There are frequent reports of attacks against LGBTQI+ people, including outing them, blackmailing, kidnapping them for ransom and outright physical violence.

  Ghana had previously sold itself globally as a progressive country, one that respects democratic principles and constitutional rule. But this year the rights violations that the LGBTQI+ community has experienced for years came to light. Attacks came in quick succession and caught us off guard.

  We started 2021 with the closure of a community centre established by LGBT+ Rights Ghana. Then an alleged lesbian wedding, which attendees claim was a birthday party, was stormed and denounced by traditional rulers, police and media. Twenty-two people were arrested and later released.

  In May came the case of the Ho 21, in which police and a team of reporters disrupted an event of human rights defenders who document and report violations against the LGBTQI+ community. Twenty-one of them were arrested, becoming victims of the crime they work to document. This nearly broke the whole movement down because other organisations closed their offices out of fear and activists went into hiding; there was too much uncertainty, and most people fell silent.

  Most recently, the so-called Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghana Family Values Bill – the ‘anti-gay bill’ – was officially introduced to parliament and is now open to contributions from the public.

  What does the bill say, and what motivates those behind it?

  The first time I read the bill, I felt like I couldn’t breathe: my right to exist in this country would be taken away from me. The bill promotes ‘conversion therapy’, making it a state function to torture people who question their sexuality or identify as intersex or transgender. Conversion therapy is very dangerous: those who undergo it may experience depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. United Nations Special Rapporteurs have stated that conversion therapy is a form of torture.

  Even though it is bipartisan, the bill is being pushed mostly by the opposition: seven out of eight members of parliament (MPs) supporting the bill are part of the opposition, including the speaker, who brought together the lawmakers and the homophobic group, the National Coalition for Proper Sexual Human Rights and Family Values. To promote the bill, they are using disinformation and lies, including incorrect HIV data stating that eight out of 10 HIV/AIDS cases are of LGBTQI+ people.

  We asked the Ghana AIDS Commission to speak out and release a statement against misinformation stigmatising people living with HIV/AIDS, but they declined out of fear. We then asked an independent fact checker, Ghana Fact, which confirmed that the claims were false. It was in turn falsely accused of being funded by the LGBTQI+ community.

  If you ask me where all this hate is coming from, I would say it has been imported. The religious texts that are being used to condemn sexual minorities and the current bill are backed by the US far-right movement, and particularly the World Congress of Families, which held a conference in Ghana in 2019. Leading up to the conference, they hosted several key personalities in Ghana, including a former president, the national chief imam and a former speaker of parliament, to ensure that they would encourage homophobia in the ‘background’.

  We believe that the US far-right movement has lost its own fight against equality, diversity and progressive values in the global west, so they have turned to Africa, which they view as fertile ground for their agendas. As early as 2017, we started to notice individuals urging the government to do something against the LGBTQI+ community. They did not seem to have enough resources to succeed, but once they formed an alliance with the World Congress of Families and began receiving funding, resources and technical support, they have been able to propose the worst bill we have ever seen go into our parliament.

  What are the bill’s implications for LGBTQI+ people in Ghana? 

  The implications of the bill reach even beyond those who identify as part of the LGBTQI+ community and are already being felt, even before it has been passed. Blackmail has become a major issue faced by the LGBTQI+ community. We used to see two or three cases a week, but now we are getting about three per day. We are seeing homophobic people on dating sites and social media pose as gay to lure gay men into their homes, where they subject them to group violence. In one particular case, the victim was blackmailed and threatened with death. If the bill is passed, people like these will have free rein to harm others, because the law will condone their behaviour.

  Ghanaians give much importance to the value of sympathy, but this bill is also going to criminalise the exercise of this value. If an LGBTQI+ person is subjected to violence in public, nobody will come to their rescue because you can be prosecuted for that. The implications are very serious in the area of public health. According to the bill, if you know or suspect that someone is an LGBTQI+ person, you must report them to the police. This applies to nurses and other health workers, which will lead to fewer people seeking health services.

  HIV programmes targeting key populations are run by community-based organisations that are mostly peer-led, and if the bill bans them from operating and bans others from registering, people will not be able to access healthcare, which is a constitutional right, making it much harder to fight HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

  While our constitution prohibits censorship, this bill will ban the publication of LGBTQI+ content, including reports of crimes against the LGBTQI+ community. This also applies to social media. It will take away our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, as well as our right to dignity and privacy. While the constitution speaks against discrimination of all forms, this bill is going to legalise discrimination against LGBTQI+ people.

  It will also target those who are not queer, including people who use sex toys or cross-dress for comedy, and youth groups and students. Our cultural traditional norms of people of the same gender walking and holding hands and putting our arms across each other’s shoulders are at stake – we sometimes also sit on each other’s laps if there is no space! All these will be outlawed due to being seen as indecent exposure and public show of amorous relations.

  What are the current priorities for Rightify Ghana and other LGBTQI+ organisations in Ghana?

  Our biggest priority is safety. Even before it is passed, we have already started seeing parts of the bill being implemented. For instance, we have seen an increase in arrests of our community members. In one of these cases, the police arrested two people and urged them to give them the names and addresses of other queer people. They were picked up by the police not for committing any crime, but because someone told them that they were queer.

  Each time we hear of people being arrested, activists rush to police stations to get them out. We are paying for our freedom. Although bail in Ghana is free, the police won’t let them go. Under Section 104 of the current Criminal Offences Act, they cannot arrest you just because someone told them you are gay, but they still do. They know they cannot prosecute you, but if you want to recover your freedom fast, they make you pay.

  We are also worried that if the bill is passed, its effects may reach further, into the homes of Ghanaian people across the world. The typical Ghanaian diasporic family upholds in their home the same principles they would in Ghana, so queer Ghanaians in the diaspora may also become victims of parents who don’t want to come back with a lesbian or gay child, and may be excommunicated from the family due to homophobia. Even in the UK, Canada and other western countries, Ghanaian families still attend Ghanaian churches where homophobia is preached. If the bill is passed, this is the law that will rule within their homes, and not that of the countries they live in.

  What are you doing to push back against the bill?

  We are working to take up space, encourage dialogue and start conversations. People have been brainwashed by the homophobic disinformation and genuinely think that queer people are paedophiles and other terrible things. We correct these lies and try to find ways so that people start listening to us and understand that people do not ‘become’ gay due to media influence and they are not ‘recruited’ by some Western power to become gay.

  Some people do not know or believe that the queer community faces human rights violations. When we show them the facts, tell them the names of those who have been beaten, evicted, lost their job, or been suspended from school and make them understand that this could be their family member, they might start listening and shift their stance, even if not to support us, at least to soften their position and listen.

  We are strategising against the bill and building alliances with mainstream organisations that have access to the legislature and the executive. This is not something one organisation can fight. It is a collective struggle. We mapped the legislative arena to identify those MPs we could reach out to, speak with and share information with, because we needed to have progressive MPs debating on our behalf.

  Awareness-raising and engagement are also taking place online. People have reached out to the LGBTQI+ community and offered donations, expertise and contacts so that we could reach out to key personalities who could help. Protests were also coordinated and held outside the country, for instance in Canada, the UK and the USA. Online organising allowed us to hold abroad the in-person protests that for security reasons we could not physically hold here.

  How can international civil society best support the struggle for LGBTQI+ rights in Ghana?

  When people ask us what they can do, we tell them to protest, to create awareness, to let people know what is happening in Ghana and urge their governments to do something about it. If they have worked in Ghana before and have contacts among powerful people in Ghana, they should use them. A consultant who has worked with a ministry can use their contacts there, and a civil society organisation that has worked here can use its networks to support local organisations. They should encourage their own governments to take up any opportunity to raise the human rights implications of the bill with the Ghanaian government. International civil society organisations and the global community should definitely put more pressure on the Ghanaian government. 

  This is a crisis and local organisations and activists were not prepared, so we need a lot of support, particularly technical expertise in the legal arena. It is also key to have allies who can speak on our behalf, so that not all those speaking up against the bill are part of the LGBTQI+ community.

  Another thing that the global community and international civil society can do is support us through funding. Rightify Ghana is currently self-financing its activities and cannot offer the level of support that people need. As soon as the bill was submitted to parliament, evictions of LGBTQI+ people increased alongside arrests, and we saw an increase in the number of people asking for help finding shelter, but unfortunately, our community doesn’t have safe houses.

  People are being evicted not just by their landlords but also by their own families under suspicion of homosexuality, and they are not finding new places to live. We receive a lot of desperate messages from people who are temporarily staying with friends but urgently need a more stable arrangement. Some of these people are under very high risk.

  In one such case, a woman who identifies as lesbian told us she considered leaving the country because a group of boys in her community threatened her with ‘corrective rape’. She lives with her family, and if she tells them about the threat, they will realise that she is a lesbian and will throw her out. Either way, she is in a very dangerous situation, and right now, there is not much that we can do to help her.

  Civic space in Ghana is rated ‘narrowed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Rightify Ghana through itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@RightifyGhana on Twitter. 

• GLOBAL CAMPAIGN: ‘The future of work requires a shift away from a focus on time’

  CIVICUS speaks about the proposal for a four-day working week with Hazel Gavigan, Global Campaigns and Activation Officer of 4 Day Week Global.

  4 Day Week Global is a civil society organisation (CSO) that advocates for a move towards a four-day working week to improve both workplace productivity and the wellbeing of employees.

  How would the proposed four-day week work, and why do you advocate for it?

  At 4 Day Week Global, it’s our ambition to make a four-day week the new default and reduced working time the new standard. The four-day week that we advocate for is very much a flexible model, not a rigid, ‘one-size-fits-all approach’ and is based on the general principle of the 100:80:100™ model – 100 per cent of the pay, for 80 per cent of the time and, crucially, in exchange for 100 per cent of the productivity or output.

  The disruption to societal and workplace norms by the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the potential for very different models of work, for both workers and employers, and reinforced the need to rethink old, established patterns. We believe the future of work requires a shift away from a focus on time, as this is not an effective way to measure people’s contributions at work. Instead, we need to focus on measuring and rewarding collective outputs.

  The four-day week we are campaigning for has countless cross-society benefits in terms of gender equality, sustainability and general improvements to health and happiness. Where implemented, it allows for better distribution of caring responsibilities, as reduced working time enables men to carry out a greater portion of labour within the home. This, in turn, helps remove barriers to women achieving senior positions in work, taking on leadership roles and pursuing training opportunities.

  Research also suggests that moving to a four-day week will reduce carbon emissions by around a fifth, by cutting back on commuting time and energy use in buildings. In her recent TED talk, one of our research partners, Professor Juliet Schor, also makes the point that when people are time-stressed, they tend to choose faster and more polluting modes of travel and daily life activities. Whereas when we get time rather than money, we tend to have a lower carbon footprint.

  And crucially, with an extra free day in the week, workers report feeling happier and less stressed and are more productive. This alone is an excellent outcome, but it also has a positive impact on businesses. Employers find that productivity is maintained, or in some cases, increased and they also have less costs associated with employee sick leave due to stress and burnout, and recruitment and retraining, as workers are satisfied in their jobs and less likely to leave for elsewhere.

  How are you advocating for the four-day week?

  Previously, we established national campaigns to generate interest and conversation in a country and then built on that to run a pilot programme there. However, the pandemic has turbocharged an organic momentum and now our pilot programme is the main driver of the campaign.

  Up to now, most case studies on the four-day work week were conducted at an individual company level, with a few exceptions, such as Iceland. The purpose of our pilot programmes is to demonstrate that the positive outcomes achieved by individual businesses we’ve observed can be replicated on a much broader scale in a variety of countries and industries.

  If we can prove the positive impact of reduced-hour, productivity-focused working on business outcomes, employee wellbeing and society in general, those results will be the driver of change that will get more and more big corporations and governments interested.

  So currently, the data and evidence our pilots produce is central to our approach in influencing the policy agenda.

  4 Day Week Global is currently running coordinated six-month trials of the four-day working week in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the USA, with numerous others planned in the coming months.

  As part of this, we have developed a package of support for employers who agree to participate in the pilot, which provides those organisations with access to the expertise, tools and resources they need to run a smooth and successful trial.

  We offer a specialised training programme, designed and delivered by companies who already operate a four-day week. Companies receive mentorship and advice from a panel of experts and business leaders from around the world. There are networking opportunities with other companies participating in the trial and participants get access to world-class academic research and expert analysis.

  Leading scholars work with each participating company to define and establish their research baseline and relevant productivity metrics for the trial. The economic, social and ecological impact of the four-day week is also monitored throughout, assessing productivity, employee wellbeing and gender and environmental impacts, both through direct carbon emissions and indirect behavioural changes. Ultimately, the key to success is recognising that time invested in work actually matters less than the results produced.

  We also have hundreds of advocates who volunteer to help grow the movement, offering everything from starting a national campaign for a four-day week in their own country to simply sharing some content on social media. It’s through this network that we can sustain and expand our level of growth, so if anyone reading this article would like to join the cause, they can sign up here.

  How did you win support for the four-day work week trial currently happening in the UK? What do you hope to get out of it?

  There’s a 4 Day Week Campaign in the UK which has been active for a number of years and quite high profile in terms of commissioning research and engaging in debate in the public square. So that definitely played a role in priming the audience and generating interest and support for the trial that recently launched.

  This is also an idea whose time has come and the support seen for the four-day week in the UK is largely down to an exponential growth in the conversation about how we work.

  Business leaders are drawn to this for recruitment and competition purposes in the midst of the ‘great resignation’ – a time when many people are looking to switch jobs. Managers are more open-minded because they were forced to trust their workers during the pandemic and figure out how to measure actual output as opposed to how long employees were spending in the office. And workers now see that a four-day week is possible in a way that they previously didn’t.

  What kind of challenges have you faced?

  The biggest challenge is convincing business leaders that the four-day week can work for them. Many people like the concept but argue that it wouldn’t be possible in their organisation. However, almost all companies that move to a four-day week do three big things: radically shorten and reform meetings, use technology more thoughtfully and mindfully, and redesign the workday to build in distinct periods for focused work, meetings and social time.

  Studies show that the average worker loses between two and three hours each day to useless meetings, poor technology implementation and just plain old distraction. So, the four-day week is actually already here; we just can’t see it because it’s buried underneath these old and thoughtless practices.

  Sometimes when companies do commit to trialling a four-day week, they overthink it in the preparatory phase and try to come up with a solution to every potential problem, which is of course impossible. So, our advice in that situation is to trust your workers to solve issues as they arise. That’s what a trial is all about.

  Are you receiving support from other CSOs?

  Yes, we are. One good example of this is the 4 Day Week Ireland campaign, where a coalition of trade unions, businesses, environmentalists, women’s rights groups, other CSOs, academics and health practitioners all joined forces with 4 Day Week Global to start a national conversation about the widespread benefits of reduced-hour, productivity-focused working.

  The results of this saw widespread media coverage on the issue which, in turn, primed the public for the launch of the Irish four-day week pilot programme, which got underway earlier this year. The coalition was also afforded the opportunity to present to key political stakeholders in an enterprise, trade and employment context, the outcome of which resulted in a government-sponsored research tender seeking to better understand the social, economic and environmental implications of reduced working time.

  We’ve had great success up to this point with the rollout of our international pilot programmes. However, in order to secure widespread change, there are four areas which feed into the overall success of the movement: labour market competition, public demand, collective bargaining and government intervention. All four of these players have different degrees of influence depending on the sector, but we need collaboration from all parties if we’re to see a broad implementation of the shorter working week.

  Get in touch with 4 Day Week Global through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@4dayweek_global on Twitter.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘A system that embraces diversity and inclusion is more legitimate’

  CIVICUS speaks with Marc Limon, Executive Director of the Universal Rights Group and former diplomat at the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, about the deficits of the global governance system and proposals for reform.

  Based in Geneva, Switzerland, theUniversal Rights Group is the only think tank in the world that focuses exclusively on global human rights policy.

   

  What are the main challenges with the global governance system, and what are the Universal Rights Group’s proposals to tackle them?

  A primary deficit in the global governance system is the inadequate representation of developing countries, particularly those in the global south. Despite the majority of UN member states being developing nations, there is a prevalent feeling that their needs and views are not being considered. Many feel that the system has been shaped by western powers to serve their own interests, further contributing to this perceived lack of inclusivity.

  To foster greater inclusivity, the UN Human Rights Council has established a Trust Fund to encourage participation in its sessions by developing countries, particularly from small island developing states and least developed countries. These are countries that don’t have missions in Geneva and may have never attended a Council session in the past. Thanks to economic support granted by this fund, officials from these countries can travel to Geneva and participate in the Council’s sessions.

  The Universal Rights Group supports this initiative by helping these countries with capacity development, facilitating their participation in Council meetings and eventually encouraging them to establish a mission in Geneva or consider running for a Council seat. By doing so, we aim to contribute to creating a more inclusive system, ensuring that developing countries are involved to the decision-making process.

  What would a more robust, effective, and democratic global governance system look like?

  For the global governance system to be more robust, effective and democratic, the three UN pillars – security, development and human rights – should have equal importance. Today, a lot of emphasis and funding are placed on the security and development pillars, while the human rights pillar is underfunded and under-resourced. While the UN Security Council and the UN Economic and Social Council are primary UN bodies, the Council remains a subsidiary one.

  Participation by developing countries should be increased across all three pillars as well as in other international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This would create ownership among developing nations. But this would require, for instance, Security Council reform. Its current configuration, with its five permanent members reflecting post-Second World War power relations, is outdated, as seen in the exclusion of powerful developing countries such as Brazil and South Africa.

  The call for diversity and inclusion extends beyond structural reforms to staffing of UN agencies. At the Office of the Higher Commissioner of Human Rights, for instance, half of staff are from western states, with Africa and Asia greatly underrepresented. It would require concerted efforts to address this kind of imbalance.

  What benefits do you anticipate from a more diverse and inclusive system?

  A system that embraces diversity and inclusion is more legitimate. If developing states are actively involved in the decision-making process, they are less likely to perceive that the system is imposing decisions on them.

  Further, a diverse and inclusive system ensures that the topics discussed are more relevant. By considering a broader range of perspectives, the agenda becomes more responsive to the diverse needs of countries worldwide, making the system more attuned to the realities and challenges faced by a varied international community.

  The bottom line is that inclusion and diversity contribute to a more effective system. Developing countries are more likely to accept and value UN recommendations, particularly on issues such as human rights, when they perceive an equal stake in the system. Having their nationals involved in different UN human rights mechanisms reinforces this sense of equality, making recommendations more credible and impactful. Particularly when it comes to human rights, it is crucial to involve victims and human rights defenders. This is the area of focus of the Universal Rights Group.

  How does the Universal Rights Group involve victims and human rights defenders?

  First, we focus on empowering environmental human rights defenders who are at the forefront of environmental struggles. Rather than relying solely on international environmental law and governmental actions, we recognise the crucial role of individuals and local communities who work tirelessly to protect their environment and advocate against greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that the most effective way to protect the environment is to protect those who protect it.

  We also advocate for victims who seek accountability when states engage in gross and systematic human rights violations. International efforts are often focused on public shaming – on denouncing the actions of these states. But we tend to forget the victims and their rightful claim to remedy and reparations. For this reason, the Universal Rights Group is working to shift the narrative by placing the lives and faces of the victims at the forefront of the Human Rights Council. We aim to have the rights of those affected by human rights abuses recognised and prioritised so that their needs for justice, remedy and reparations are addressed.

  What specific reforms are your organisation campaigning for?

  Our efforts are now focused on the UN General Assembly’s 2021-2026 Review, set to assess whether the Human Rights Council should remain a subsidiary body or become a main body of the UN. This offers a unique opportunity to strengthen the Council and its mechanisms.

  We have also contributed to the UN Development System reform, which places sustainable development at the heart of the UN’s work. Considering that over 90 per cent of targets of the Sustainable Development Goals are grounded in intensive human rights work, this reform integrates human rights into UN development programming. We believe that if countries make progress on human rights, they are, by extension and definition, making progress on sustainable development. That’s why we consider it crucial for the UN to integrate human rights into national-level UN development programming.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Universal Rights Group through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@URGthinktank and@marc_limon on Twitter.

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘Every person on the planet should have an equal opportunity to participate in decision-making’

  CIVICUS speaks with Andreas Bummel, co-founder and Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders (DWB) and the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, about the deficits of the current global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Founded in 2017, DWB is an international civil society organisation with national chapters and associates across the world, aimed at promoting global governance, global democracy and global citizenship.

  What’s wrong with existing global governance institutions?

  Global governance has rightly been described as a spaghetti bowl, and that’s because there is too much fragmentation, overlap, incoherence and opacity, with many parallel and siloed processes going on at the same time, involving who knows how many institutions, initiatives and projects.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘It may take a crisis as big as the one that originated the system to produce the reform it needs’

  CIVICUS speaks with John Vlasto, Board Chair of the World Federalist Movement (WFM), about the deficits of the existing global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Founded in 1947, WFM is a non-profit, nonpartisan organisation seeking a just, free and peaceful world where humanity and nature flourish in harmony, through the creation of more effective, transparent and accountable global governance.

  What are the biggest shortcomings of the existing system of global governance?

  The main problem is that decisions are made in defence of the national interest rather than to serve the common good of humanity. This means we get the lowest-common denominator compromises rather than the profound changes that humanity needs.

  The way decisions are currently made is absurd. Take the ongoing COP28 climate summit: it’s a circus, a clear symptom of dysfunctional global governance. We are driving the planetary ecosystem over a cliff because although it’s clearly in humanity’s best interest to reduce carbon emissions straight away, it’s in no nation’s interest to move to do so first.

  Decision making is dysfunctional because of the nature of our global governance institutions. The United Nations (UN) is basically a congress of ambassadors tasked with defending each country’s national interest as perceived by their governments. The dynamic is of competition rather than collaboration, so you end up with the lowest-common denominator compromises.

  How could this problem be tackled?

  To tackle global challenges we need global governance. We are taking enormous risks with our planetary home – but we don’t have to. We know how to create a legitimate and accountable decision-making process that serves the common good – through carefully implemented democracy.

  We could think of global governance as a well-functioning Europe – or a well-functioning USA, for that matter – extended to the global scale.

  What the world is missing that Europe has is a parliament. There is a longstanding proposal for creating a parliamentary assembly at the UN. There’s a big difference between a parliament and a congress of ambassadors such as the UN General Assembly. As explained by Edmund Burke, a British philosopher and politician of the 18th century, a parliament isn’t a collection of ‘ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain’ – it is ‘a deliberative assembly… with one interest, that of the whole’.

  In a federal system like the USA, Congress has two chambers, one representing the people and another representing the states. This is a model that could be followed on a global scale. For the USA it would make no sense to have only one chamber representing the states – but that’s what we currently have at the UN, with all nations, regardless of size, having one seat at the General Assembly, an organ that consequently has little real power.

  As Carlos Romulo of the Philippines said after the 1945 San Francisco conference that established the UN, ‘as a spokesman for a small nation, I want to make it very plain that my nation... would be very happy indeed to trade the fiction of equality in a powerless Assembly for the reality of a vote equal to our actual position in the world in an Assembly endowed with real power’.

  If it followed the federal model, the UN would still have a General Assembly representing the interests of nations. But it would also have a parliamentary assembly, representing the people, making decisions to serve the common good of humanity.

  I believe that ultimately representatives to such body should be elected on the basis of the ‘one person, one vote’ principle, but I don’t believe we should do that tomorrow. Right now, the principle ‘one nation, one vote’ means a range from one vote per 1.4 billion people to one vote per 12,000. If we were to establish a world parliament tomorrow we should use degressive proportionality, as does the European Parliament, which means that although more populous nations elect more representatives than smaller nations, smaller nations are allocated more seats than they would strictly receive in proportion to their population. This is an intermediate solution between one nation one vote and one person one vote.

  Is there anything else that can be done?

  We need profound changes, the most profound being a UN parliamentary body, but in the meantime, there’s a whole bunch of lower-hanging fruit. In particular, WFM has two projects that I would like to mention.

  One of them is MEGA – Mobilising an Earth Governance Alliance, (or ‘Make Earth Great Again’!). MEGA is a coalition of civil society organisations that will be working in cooperation with like-minded states to strengthen existing environmental governance mechanisms and institutions and establish additional ones. It will be officially launched in January 2024 and will offer a forum for environmental organisations, experts, like-minded governments, legislators, campaigners and other stakeholders to engage, share information and strategies and support advocacy for better global environmental governance. It will produce a wide range of reports, proposals and campaigns – some managed by MEGA itself, others by partner organisations. MEGA as a whole provides a comprehensive solution to the environmental crises we face, and a basis for global governance more broadly.

  MEGA is promoting the implementation of the recommendations of the Climate Governance Commission’s 2023 report. To that end, we will be mobilising ‘smart coalitions’ of state and non-state actors – a proven method for the reform of global governance, the International Criminal Court and the landmines ban treaty being cases in point. Countries least responsible for climate change and suffering the greatest impact are potential leading members of such coalitions.

  Another WFM project, launched in October, is LAW not War. This doesn’t seek to change the institutions of global governance, but to make better use of the ones we already have. It proposes to enhance the jurisdiction and use of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) so that international disputes can be resolved peacefully rather than through recourse to the threat or use of force.

  Specifically, the objectives of the campaign are to increase the number of states accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ; encourage more frequent use of the ICJ as a dispute resolution mechanism provided in international treaties; appeal to states to make use of ICJ jurisdiction through mutual agreement for specific disputes; support UN bodies to request ICJ advisory opinions on critical issues; and encourage states to adopt constitutional amendments or legislative measures to affirm the UN Charter’s prohibition of war and the obligation to resolve international disputes peacefully, including through recourse to the ICJ.

  Do you think global governance would benefit from greater civil society access and participation?

  The dysfunction of global governance is not fundamentally about civil society having poor access. That’s a symptom of the core dysfunction, which is about decision making and legitimacy. If there were a world parliament, by virtue of its role it would give a voice to civil society – not only to civil society but also to business, Indigenous peoples and everyone else. A system allowing greater access to more voices would be better informed, more representative and more legitimate. But the solution is not simply giving civil society more access, because what would be the point in giving civil society the most wonderful access to a broken system? But if you created a parliament, civil society access would follow.

  What would it take for the reforms that you propose to materialise?

  This decision making and legitimacy dysfunction goes back to the very origins of the current system when the winners of the Second World War gave themselves a veto. It may take a crisis as big as the one that originated the system to produce the profound reform it needs. As Milton Friedman noted, what’s done in a crisis depends on the plans that are lying around at the time, so part of WFM’s role is to write the plan and keep it alive in the minds of policy makers until the crisis occurs and the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.

  Exactly what such a crisis will be is unknowable, but I don’t think we’ve had a catalyst anywhere near the scale necessary yet. It took the Second World War to produce the current system, and it could take a third to produce a new one – though of course, it might be too late for that if as a result of this crisis we have been incinerated. The big question then is whether there will be sufficient catalyst for change before we pass some catastrophic tipping point.

  If one takes the view that catastrophe is inevitable, or on the other hand that everything will work out in the end, then there would be no point in advocating for better global governance. In my view it could go either way, so there remains a realistic path to a just, free and peaceful world, where humanity and nature flourish in harmony, and there is no better use of time than doing what one can to help steer humanity onto this path.

  ---

  Get in touch with the World Federalist Movement through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@worldfederalist on Twitter.

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘The current system is dysfunctional, but we still depend on it in crucial ways’

  CIVICUS speaks with Natalie Samarasinghe, Global Director for advocacy at the Open Society Foundations (OSF), about the need for global governance reform and the proposalfor a civil society envoy within the United Nations (UN) system.

  OSFs is the world’s largest private funder of independent groups working for justice, democratic governance and human rights. It bases its work on the principles of justice, equity and expression as defining characteristics of any truly open society.

  What do you think are the biggest shortcomings of thecurrent global governance system?

  The most evident issue is its lack of effectiveness. While the global governance system is essential and is tasked with significant responsibilities, it is not delivering results. It’s dysfunctional and fails to respond to the biggest challenges we face – the existential climate emergency, the pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis and other major conflicts. The system is not dealing with these challenges – it’s not anticipating them nor preventing their escalation.

  The global governance system is also dysfunctional in addressing lower-magnitude issues. We were used to seeing the UN Security Council struggle to deal with big conflicts in which one of the permanent members had a close interest. But now we are seeing the UN being kicked out from countries where there is no such interest. Decades-old peacekeeping operations are being questioned for having achieved too little. Debt is another good example of an area where we don’t seem to be able to get fair deals on the table.

  This plays a significant role when it comes to legitimacy. We have a system that has baked-in inequalities. The quota system of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the structure of the UN Security Council are obvious examples. These were initially accepted because there was a common understanding that, to an extent, they worked. This is no longer the case: these systems are not doing what they are supposed to do: keep big powers in check. And it’s an even bigger problem because they are still tasked with fulfilling essential functions that millions of people across the world depend on.

  But there is no alternative global forum to replace the current system. While there are institutions such the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, we still heavily rely on the IMF and the World Bank for most of the development infrastructure and humanitarian needs. And when we are looking for verified information, such as updates on the situation in Israel and Palestine, we still place trust in UN sources.

  Although the current global governance system is dysfunctional, we still depend on it in crucial ways. So one of the massive issues we face is how to create something new without tearing down the old, which we still need.

   

  How could existing global governance institutions be made more effective?

  Let’s take the International Labour Organization as an example. This organisation, which predates the UN system, employs a tripartite system in which workers, employers and the government are represented – what we would now call a multistakeholder system. This means the right people are brought to the table at the right time. It’s not just the decision-makers, but also those who will take care of implementation and the ones who will be affected by the decisions.

  While decision-making processes that follow this system can sometimes be painfully slow, implementation picks up speed because the decision is clear and has ownership and legitimacy for all parties involved.

  There are lots of examples of processes bringing people together in similar ways. The case of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, shows that these don’t need to be time-consuming. In this case it was quite fast thanks to a structure that, although representative, included a limited number of people.

  It’s also interesting to explore complementary systems operating at multiple levels. Take, for instance, the global refugee system. Despite its limited ability to address the issue of climate refugees, there is no interest in introducing changes at a global level, for fear that opening it up to discussion can end up undermining it. But there is still the possibility of introducing innovations at the city and community levels, as shown in responses to the Ukraine crisis.

  Effective leadership is also crucial. Peacekeeping and mediation were not included in the UN Charter but were developed over time in response to a need. We need visionary leaders with the flexibility to generate new ideas. As we confront challenges such as climate change, the success of major gatherings such as climate summits hinges on leaders who can bring innovation and vision to the table. UN reform is urgently needed, but without good leaders it will remain elusive.

  Howis OSF working to advance a more robust, effective and democratic global governance system?

  OSF is the largest private funder of independent groups working for justice, democratic governance and human rights, and we are looking at how best to make our support count as new challenges meet existing ones. Earlier this year, we polled people across 30 countries – large, small, high-income, developing – and the results were both reassuring and alarming: people care about democracy and human rights. An overwhelming number of respondents were positive about the enduring value of these principles. But they aren’t seeing these values translate into results on the ground or in improvements in their daily lives, especially when it comes to economic and social rights.

  In addition to working with those on the ground, OSF is able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We can bring people together across geographies, issues and sectors. This allows for cross-learning from various human rights spaces and tools, tackling problems from different angles and supporting innovative ideas. OSF can back those advocating for change as well as provide funds to support the change-makers.

  A clear example of this approach was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when we advocated for developing countries not only to have access to vaccines but also to be able to produce them themselves, including support for the establishment of a vaccine manufacturing plant in Senegal.

  OSF aims to translate its advocacy into tangible actions, leveraging its privileged position to make a unique contribution.

  What initiatives is civil society advancing to reform global governance?

  I would like to highlight the UNMute Civil Society initiative, which advocates for a civil society envoy or a civil society champion within the UN system.

  The problem with civil society engagement is that it’s often seen through a very narrow prism of who’s in the room at a particular event, without a consistent, cross-cutting approach and outreach strategy to mainstream civil society participation.

  A civil society envoy could perform a number of sorely needed tasks, such as identifying gaps, assessing best practices, enhancing accessibility and streamlining processes. At the moment, it’s challenging, especially for smaller civil society groups, to navigate the plethora of websites, forms, requirements and timelines that are all different depending on which part of the UN they want to engage with. Sometimes the rules differ from event to event. An envoy could help simplify all this, and also help ensure that engagement is meaningful, substantive and helpful to all involved.

  Let’s clarify that the civil society envoy would not be someone who represents civil society, just like the Youth Envoy does not represent all young people, nor the head of UN Women represent all women. This is someone who represents the UN and its commitment to having civil society not just in the room, but on the ground, helping the UN to achieve its goals.

  And here’s where we could get creative. The envoy could explore ways of engaging people with digital and non-digital approaches and explore civil society engagement with the UN and also the World Bank, regional banks and other regional institutions. The envoy could also track the allocation of funds, and draw attention to the extremely low levels of funding – such as development and climate funding – that goes to groups such as grassroots women’s organisations.

  The role has enormous potential in terms of the change it could inspire. This is a hugely important effort, and I am really glad that CIVICUS and many other civil society organisations are pushing for it. I also know that there are plenty of supportive UN member states, even if people tend to think they are not. We’ve moved way beyond that. If you look at the UN75 Declaration or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is a clear recognition that civil society needs to be at the table, and the envoy offers a way to do it in a more coherent and effective way.

  What benefits do you anticipate from greater civil society access and participation?

  Civil society participation is essential. We are not going to get anywhere on anything if we do not have people, communities, social movements and organisations involved. They have a key role in shaping responses to issues such as COVID-19 and climate change. By including civil society in decision-making, decisions gain legitimacy because they are based on what those directly affected think is the best solution.

  An example of how having civil society around the table has revolutionised our approach are cash transfers. Donors were against giving cash directly to people. They would rather give vouchers or support a project. But civil society showed them that when given cash, people would mostly make the right choices without the need for much of the infrastructure otherwise needed. Similarly, civil society has helped to advance accountability for human rights violations where UN processes have not been able to, through national-level work on targeted sanctions.

  Civil society groups are on the frontlines of development, climate change and humanitarian crisis. They are valuable partners of the UN and could be equally valuable partners of the World Bank and IMF if they were allowed to.

  It is often said that the UN does not have enough funds or capacity to get things done on the ground – but civil society is that capacity. Instead of designing a new set of SDGs, let’s have the UN transfer power, responsibility and funding to local groups that have the legitimacy and the ability to deliver what people on the ground need and want. This would be transformative.

  And civil society also acts as a conscience to international organisations and multilateral institutions by reminding them what they stand for. As we look at the suffering of civilians – in Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, Sudan and elsewhere – it seems like we have forgotten why we have humanitarian and human rights laws. Despite grave risks, civil society acts without fear or favour, calling out violations wherever they occur. And we at Open Society are committed to do what we can to help.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Open Society Foundations through theirwebsite orFacebook page, and follow@OpenSociety and@OpenNatalie on Twitter.

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘The main problem is that words do not translate into tangible actions’

  CIVICUS speaks about the challenges of global governance with Carlos Quesada, founder and executive director of the Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights (Race & Equality).

  Race & Equality is an international civil society organisation (CSO) that works with activists and organisations in Latin America to promote and protect the human rights of people who are excluded because of their national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender identity. It does so through training, documentation of human rights violations and advocacy work at the national and international levels.

  What opportunities does the current institutional system of global governance offer?

  The current system offers opportunities to work for the improvement of international standards for the protection and promotion of human rights, which we have taken advantage of. Race & Equality played a key role, for instance, in developing the Inter-American Convention Against Racism, Racial Discrimination and Related Forms of Intolerance (CIRDI) and the Inter-American Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance, the approval of which was achieved following 13 years of work with various countries in the region.

  We work closely with political bodies of the Organization of American States (OAS) such as the General Assembly and the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs. In the global system of the United Nations, we help our national counterparts influence treaty bodies, during the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review process in their countries, and in their interactions with Special Procedures – the Special Rapporteurs, Working Groups and Independent Experts.

  Our strategy focuses on supporting struggles for the rights of women, LGBTQI+ people, children and people of African descent using treaty bodies. In this way we ensure that our recommendations are integrated into the observations and conclusions of member states in bodies such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

  What are the main problems with the current global governance system?

  Returning to the previous example, although we have achieved the adoption of two Inter-American conventions against racism and discrimination, unfortunately only six states in the Americas have ratified CIRDI and one of them, Brazil, has issued a reservation limiting its use to cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). Only two states in the hemisphere have ratified the Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance.

  The main deficit of the global governance system lies in the lack of implementation of what has been agreed. There is a gap between states’ public declarations and promises in these instances and their real commitment to compliance. Despite progress, words are often not translated into tangible actions.

  Another example of this deficit is the low number of IACtHR rulings that are fully complied with. There is no mechanism to punish states that fail to comply with court rulings. The only positive aspect is that they are not time-barred, so there is always hope that a change of government takes place and the new government decides to comply with them.

  The fact that recommendations are not binding is a major challenge for both the Inter-American system and global systems and has been a fundamental structural problem since their inception. Sanctions should be binding, but they are not, and at the end of the day the process becomes a dialogue of good intentions where states promise to comply with recommendations, but in practice they rarely do.

  What do you think a more robust, effective and democratic global governance system would look like?

  The big challenge for civil society is to trigger a cascade effect from the local to the international levels. This involves strengthening democracy at the local level so that democratic principles are reflected in various spaces, even reaching international institutions such as the OAS. There should be real democratic political participation so that democratic states embrace a genuine commitment to respect and promote human rights and sanction violations.

  This commitment must not be merely declarative but must be genuine and accompanied by effective dialogue with civil society to advance standards for the promotion and protection of human rights. Currently, states and CSOs are engaged in monologues – we don’t engage in dialogue with each other. Civil society uses these spaces to make recommendations, but often lacks an interlocutor on the other side. States, for their part, make speeches for the world to hear, without establishing real dialogue. There is a need to move towards a more participatory and collaborative model.

  What reforms are you campaigning for?

  Race & Equality is promoting the CIRDI2024 campaign with the aim of achieving full ratification of CIRDI before the International Decade for People of African Descent ends next year. Our goal is to achieve the 10 ratifications needed to create an Inter-American Committee to Prevent and Punish Racial Discrimination in the Americas.

  We are also participating, alongside other CSOs in the Americas, in dialogues on how to improve civil society participation in the political bodies of the OAS. This way, we seek to transform current monologues into real dialogues between civil society and states. We want these dialogues to be real, tangible and effective, promoting more meaningful collaboration.

  In addition, we are promoting a campaign to make the rulings of the IACtHR binding. This step is essential to ensure the protection and prevention of human rights violations in the Americas. We are committed to producing significant and tangible changes to strengthen mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights.

  ---

  Get in touch with Race & Equality through itswebsite and follow @raceandequality onInstagram andTwitter.

  

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘The scale and urgency of our challenges calls for more than incremental reform, it requires transformation’

  CIVICUS speaks with Stirling Dean, Chair and Executive Director of the United Institutions Foundation, about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  The United Institutions Foundation administers the institutional development of United Institutions, a planned new global institution for international cooperation between the public, private and civil sectors.

   

  What’s the current state of multilateralism?

  Multilateralism has served as the foundation of the global rule-based order for over 70 years and still does today. However, it is currently under severe strain and being undermined by a host of interconnected challenges.

  First and foremost, our world is facing a host of escalating global challenges including climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and inequality, which threaten the wellbeing of people and the planet. The multilateral system and many of our institutions are chronically overstretched due to the sheer number, complexity and scale of these challenges. Further, meeting the day-to-day demands coming from these challenges takes priority, making it difficult to tackle the root causes. Countries are also falling far behind in realising the new multilateral agreements that we have put in place to address these challenges, including the 2030 Agenda that established the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

  At the same time, we face a deteriorating international security environment, armed conflicts and deep divisions within and between nations. We are moving towards a more multipolar world with renewed distrust and competition between major powers. We are also seeing a rise in populism, nationalism, protectionism, misinformation and deliberate attempts to undermine democratic values around the world, which are also negatively impacting on multilateralism and international cooperation.

  Civic space is furthermore shrinking around the world, as many countries work to undermine human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. This is in direct opposition to the principles of the 2030 Agenda as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed and ratified by those same countries. These practices affect not only people at the local and national levels but also have repercussions for the governments themselves, for their relations with other nations and for multilateralism as a whole. Moreover, they negatively affect the realisation of our global agendas, which affects us all.

  Moreover, we have paid far too little attention to the need to strengthen the multilateral system. Our current structures and institutions were largely built for the circumstances of the last century and many are now outdated and haven’t been upgraded and adequately equipped for the complex interlinked challenges and political realities of today’s world. They also don’t adequately account for the much larger set of stakeholder groups that are engaged in global affairs today. Lack of connectivity, integration, inclusion, alignment and coordination across governance structures, mechanisms, sectors, policy areas and geographies are significant challenges.

  Financing is a key challenge as well. Our global systems and institutions are chronically underfunded and development cooperation continues to be insufficient to meet demand, as only a handful of countries are delivering on the official development assistance target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income.

  On the positive side, the United Nations (UN) system is still making a tangible difference for countries and millions of people around the world. Countries did come together at the UN to adopt new global agendas, and to a large extent are committed to engaging with each other through multilateral institutions. They are also aware of the governance challenges we face and are actively looking at ways to turn the tide.

  Moreover, non-state stakeholders across sectors and geographies are engaged and committed to addressing our challenges and realising these agendas. They are also calling for strengthened inclusion in global decision-making and working to hold governments to account.

  Last but not least, according to surveys conducted by the UN and other institutions, the vast majority of the world’s people still strongly support and believe in international cooperation and multilateralism. And that is essential.

  Are non-state stakeholders sufficiently included in key deliberations at the UN?

  Non-state stakeholders have been engaged in UN deliberations since its founding and have been quite instrumental in helping drive many of the developments and decisions that states have made at the UN. However, due to the intergovernmental nature of the UN there have always been barriers to stakeholder engagement, and participation has been limited. Moreover, the inclusion of non-state stakeholders is often treated as an afterthought and regarded by many as mere tokenism.

  To a large extent non-state stakeholders believe that their level of inclusion and participation in UN deliberations is completely insufficient. They argue that when it does take place, it is mostly limited to two-minute interventions with no follow up, which does not constitute meaningful engagement, debate or collaboration, and I tend to agree. For decades, they have called for greater and more meaningful engagement, and with the ever-growing number of stakeholders engaged in global affairs, this call is today stronger than ever.

  What can be done to improve things?

  There have been multiple attempts to strengthen working methods between UN member states and non-state stakeholders and to increase inclusion and participation in UN deliberations, but, with few exceptions, the resulting changes have most often been minor due to built-in resistance, constraints related to the intergovernmental nature of the organisation and pushback from various member states.

  However, there are proposals for reform worth considering. These include the recommendations made by the Unmute Civil Society initiative, led by the governments of Costa Rica and Denmark, and the proposed establishment of a UN civil society envoy, supported by multiple civil society campaigns.

  UN member states could also explore the plethora of already established engagement methodologies used by individual UN agencies, civil society, the private sector and some national and local governments. These include comprehensive e-consultation platforms, hearings, co-creation workshops, civil society mechanisms and focus groups, just to mention a few. There are literally dozens of opportunities that could be explored.

  We will have to wait and see what proposals make it into the Pact for the Future, the outcome document of the upcoming Summit of the Future. Given past experiences, if any changes are made, they will most likely be incremental and nowhere near what is needed. Also, while the scope of the outcome document does include an important proposal for increased inclusion of youth, it does not address the need to strengthen inclusion and participation of all stakeholder groups. I hope this will change during the upcoming negotiations of the zero draft of the document.

  What’s at stake in the Summit of the Future?

  UN member states are holding the Summit of the Future with the aim of agreeing on a range of reforms and investments to reinvigorate multilateralism, strengthen international cooperation and accelerate progress in realising global development agendas.

  A host of reform proposals have been put forth and are being considered for inclusion in the summit and its outcome document. These include possible reforms to the UN, reform of the international financial architecture, strengthening global emergency response, adopting a new agenda for peace, strengthening digital cooperation and accounting for the interests of future generations in global decision making, among others. It is a tall agenda but a very necessary one. Each of the proposed reforms is important and will be required in helping us turn the tide.

  Concerningly, however, numerous mission-critical governance challenges, reforms and investments, some of which were included in the UN Secretary-General’s ‘Our Common Agenda’ report, were not included in the agreed scope of the summit outcome document. These include realising a whole-of-society approach, breaking silos, investing in our capacity to implement integrated approaches, realising a more networked and inclusive multilateralism and strengthening inclusion and participation of all stakeholder groups in global decision making, among others. If these issues are not addressed, many of our governance challenges will remain and negatively affect our ability to achieve the results that we need.

  What is United Institutions, and how can it help improve multilateralism?

  Strengthening multilateralism and international cooperation to address our global challenges and realising our agendas will require a lot more than the proposals currently being considered for the Pact for the Future. The scale and urgency of our challenges also calls for more than incremental reforms, it requires transformation.

  As outlined in ‘Our Common Agenda’, we need a more networked, inclusive and effective multilateralism that involves all stakeholder constituencies and enables us to work in a more comprehensive and integrated manner. This requires an investment in the connectivity and capacity of the global ecosystem of mechanisms and stakeholders beyond the UN. It also requires that a host of system-wide governance challenges are solved, including silos, fragmentation and lack of inclusion. It would also require us to work together across sectors to build trust, strengthen relations, realise integrated approaches and establish global solidarity. These are functions the UN is not designed for and are not addressed by the UN reform proposals being considered for the Pact for the Future. Fragmented ad hoc solutions will not suffice either. Getting there will instead require strategic investments into functions and capabilities of the multilateral system and the global governance architecture that complement existing structures.

  The United Institutions is a planned new global institution, integrator platform and permanent world forum for global cooperation between the public, private and civil society sectors, being developed for the international community. It is intended to serve as a complement to the UN. It is developed with a view to strengthen governance, cooperation and collective action, and to support and enable the international community to realise a more networked and inclusive multilateralism, build out the institutional framework at the global level and link sectors, mechanisms and processes together across policy areas and geographies.

  The platform will provide a unifying charter, enabling environment and infrastructure for cooperation at the global level, and is designed to work in coordination with existing mechanisms at the international and national levels. It will enable existing structures and institutions to strengthen their interconnectivity, coordination and alignment in a coherent and integrated manner, and to transform institutional silos and fragmentation into systemic and sustained cooperation, integration and collective action. Among its functions, it is also intended to support and help transform working methods and relations between non-state stakeholders and UN member states, and to strengthen civic engagement and civic space at the global level.

  Both the plans for the United Institutions and the proposals being considered for the Pact for the Future are aimed at strengthening multilateralism and international cooperation, but they don’t address the same needs and instead complement each other. The United Institutions is currently in preparatory development ahead of its institutional formation and operationalisation. To learn more about this, please visit www.unitedinstitutions.org.

  ---

  Get in touch with the United Institutions Foundation through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ui_foundation on Twitter.

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

   

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘The Summit of the Future is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a difference in people’s lives’

  CIVICUS speaks with Dr Richard Ponzio, Director of the Global Governance, Security and Justice Programme at the Stimson Center, about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  The Stimson Center is a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank that promotes international peace and security and shared prosperity through applied research and independent analysis, global engagement and policy innovation.

  Dr Ponzio also co-directs the Stimson Center-ledGlobal Governance Innovation Network.

   

  What’s the purpose of the Summit of the Future planned for September 2024?

  The Summit of the Future, the convening of which had been recommended by the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, was originally set to be held in 2023, but following somewhat acrimonious negotiations a decision was made to delay it by a year. We witnessed a major diplomatic fault-line between several influential global south countries and a large proportion of the UN membership, caused primarily by the perceived competition between the Summit of the Future and the mid-point Summit for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG Summit), held in September 2023.

  In particular, Cuba, on behalf of the G77 and China, repeatedly reiterated its lingering concerns that the Summit of the Future’s multiple tracks could divert political attention, financial resources and precious time, particularly for smaller UN missions, from the ‘main priority’ of achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

  This is one significant area where civil society organisations worldwide can help bridge divisions between major groupings of UN member states. Specifically, they can help build the case that while the SDG Summit arrived at a relatively brief high-level political statement acknowledging global governance gaps in need of urgent attention to accelerate progress on the 2030 Agenda, the preparatory process for next year’s Summit of the Future is designed to realise – through well-conceived, politically acceptable and adequately resourced reform proposals – the actual systemic changes needed to fill those gaps.

  This will entail comprehensively tracking the SDG Summit’s identified gaps and ensuring their coverage, backed by sufficient financing and high-level political support – including through concurrent deliberations in the G20, G7 and BRICS+ forums – in the multiple, in-depth instruments to be negotiated for the Summit of the Future, including its main outcome document, the Pact for the Future, and the associated Declaration on Future Generations, Global Digital Compact and New Agenda for Peace. In tangible ways, these instruments will help take forward the 2030 Agenda, the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and the wider UN agenda.

  What key considerations should policymakers take into account ahead of the Summit?

  While seeking to avoid political minefields that could make working relations between major groupings of UN member states even more toxic, it is critical that in the coming weeks and months, all member states begin to coalesce around a select number of ambitious, high-impact global governance innovations that will constitute the chief legacy of the Summit. Otherwise, what’s the point of holding it, let alone the UN75 Declaration and the Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda that preceded it?

  The UN 60 Summit held in 2005 was the last time the need for improvements across the entire UN system was reviewed in a single intergovernmental summit. Although governments came up short in high-profile areas such as Security Council reform and disarmament, there were three major achievements: the creation of the new UN peacebuilding architecture, which included the Peacebuilding Commission, Fund and Support Office; the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect principle; and the upgrade of an enfeebled Human Rights Commission into an empowered Human Rights Council with new tools for safeguarding human rights, such as the widely acclaimed Universal Periodic Review.

  What would a successful Summit of the Future look like?

  Five big-ticket reforms, one for each of the Pact for the Future’s five agreed chapter headings, would help ensure a legacy worthy of UN75 that addresses today’s toughest global challenges.

  In the area of sustainable development and financing for development, the convening of a biennial UN-G20+ Summit for the Global Economy would help foster socioeconomic recovery from the pandemic, mitigate and manage cross-border shocks and address rising global inequality. Such global economic convening would push the leaders of the G20 and heads of the international financial institutions and World Trade Organization to join all 193 UN member states and the Secretary-General for the General Assembly’s annual high-level week – in which the participation of influential countries at the highest level has waned.

  In the area of international peace and security, a major reform would be the upgrade of the UN Peacebuilding Commission to an empowered Peacebuilding Council equipped to prevent conflict and build just and durable peace after protracted violent conflicts. Crucially, this would involve an expanded mandate to enhance peacebuilding policy development, coordination, resource mobilisation and conflict prevention efforts in countries and regions not directly addressed by the Security Council.

  In the area of science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, it would be key to establish an International Artificial Intelligence (AI) Agency to advance the core principles of safety, sustainability, and inclusion through effective global governance to harness the potential of artificial intelligence and other cyber-technologies for humanity. Specifically, the new agency would improve visibility, advocacy and resource mobilisation for global AI regulatory efforts and provide thought leadership and help to implement General Assembly and Security Council AI and cyber-technology initiatives.

  Regarding young people and future generations, the focus should be on establishing an Earth Stewardship Council (ESC) for improved governance of the global commons, as well as a new Special Envoy for Future Generations, to better carry out together the Declaration on Future Generations now being negotiated. To ensure member states’ adherence to their declaration commitments, the ESC could conduct an annual Future Generations Review.

  Finally, the transformation of global governance could be achieved through reform of the global economic and financial architecture to allow for greater stability and sustainable progress. Among the most urgent changes needed is the strengthening of the global debt architecture through, for example, debt-for-nature-swaps and a representative sovereign debt authority to aid indebted countries in restructuring. There’s also an urgent need to repurpose multilateral development banks by expanding their lending capacity by more than US$100 billion, reforming voting rights and decision-making rules, instituting new measures to de-risk investments to further unleash private capital and issuing the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights more regularly and at greater scale to finance critical global public goods.

  What pitfalls should the international community watch out for in the run up to the Summit?

  As noted earlier, a major diplomatic fault-line has opened between several influential global south countries and a large proportion of the UN’s membership, the Secretariat and many civil society groups.

  Despite a well-conceived and carefully consulted ‘roadmap’ by the summit’s co-facilitators, the permanent representatives to the UN of Germany and Namibia, and 11 carefully crafted policy briefs by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, the current approach to Summit preparation involving consultations with member states and other stakeholders has been disappointing.

  Being excessively process-oriented, for most of last year it focused on determining the precise number of intergovernmental negotiating tracks and the degree of ambition within each track, risking delays to substantive work on the Pact for the Future and related instruments.

  Long-overdue discussions on substance are urgently needed to improve the methods and institutions that will enable the UN to face an expansive and critical agenda that runs across its three pillars – peace and security, sustainable development and human rights. Their absence is keeping the international community from achieving the UN we need for the future we want, as the UN75 Report put it.

  How can civil society engage with the Summit?

  As in past UN summits, the active, well-informed and independent contributions of diverse partners from across civil society worldwide, including advocates from civil society organisations, community-based leaders, regional and country-level practitioners, scholars, policy analysts and faith community leaders, are critical to a successful outcome. As well as having innovative ideas and expertise to share, they can help amplify key messages and commitments coming out of government-led negotiations in the weeks and months ahead for the broader public in their countries, mobilising greater support for actions to address global challenges.

  To facilitate further constructive contributions from civil society over the coming months, the Coalition for the UN We Need has encouraged UN missions to consider welcoming at least one individual civil society and one individual youth representative onto their negotiating teams in the months prior to the Summit, as well as to encourage open and accessible intergovernmental meetings for civil society to observe and, on occasion, offer timely substantive inputs. Member states are also encouraged to welcome and facilitate the participation of their national civil society leaders in the 9-10 May UN-Civil Society Forum in Nairobi, Kenya, which the UN Secretariat is planning with the Coalition for the UN We Need and other civil society partners committed to maximising the full potential of the Summit of the Future.

  Through a combination of critical mass, quality ideas, enlightened global leadership and deft multilateral diplomacy, civil society can team up with champion governments, alongside dynamic leaders in global and regional institutions, to ensure that this literally once-in-a-generation Summit of the Future makes a meaningful difference in people’s lives. Together, governments and their partners in civil society and multilateral institutions must work quickly and resolutely to leverage this opportunity to realise the future we want and the UN we need for present and future generations.

  How is the Stimson Center working to bring different stakeholders together?

  Since the 2015 report of the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance, Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance, and the 2021 launch of the Global Governance Innovation Network (GGIN), the Stimson Center has encouraged constructive engagement of diverse stakeholders in civil society, government and the private sector on issues of global governance innovation, and specifically in preparation for the 2024 Summit of the Future.

  Among the GGIN’s primary workstreams, it has facilitated 10 global and regional policy dialogues in the global north and south, including a forthcoming one in Africa, undertakes and commissions policy research, including from female and younger scholars, and coordinates a diverse, global online community of practice including scholars, practitioners and policy advocates.

  The GGIN is also a proud founding partner of the Coalition for the UN We Need, which – along with its predecessor, the UN2020 campaign – provides a global platform to enable greater civil society impact in strengthening the UN system. In 2024, the Coalition will give particular attention to engaging civil society partners in its critical advocacy work to raise the ambition of the Summit of the Future so that it can make the UN system more inclusive, effective and accountable.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Stimson Center through itswebsite and follow@StimsonCenter,@GGINetwork and@ponzio_richard on Twitter.

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘To change global institutions, we must think boldly while acting strategically’

  CIVICUS speaks with Rebecca Shoot, Executive Director of Citizens for Global Solutions, about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Citizens for Global Solutions is a non-profit, nonpartisan, civil society organisation based in the USA. Initially founded as the World Federalist Association, for over 75 years it has advocated for a democratic world federation based on peace, human rights and the rule of law.

  What are the key global problems that need global solutions?

  Citizens for Global Solutions was founded in 1947 by some of the greatest minds and peace champions of the last century, including Albert Einstein, J William Fulbright, Norman Cousins, Clare Booth Luce and Benjamin Ferencz. It was founded in recognition of global challenges such as war, planetary emergencies of climate and health, and growing inequalities including poverty and human security.

  None of that has changed. These challenges have only accelerated and exacerbated. On 23 January 2024, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists announced that the Doomsday Clock, operational since 1947 and representing the likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe, stands at 90 seconds to midnight for the second year in a row – the closest it has ever been to the point that represents unprecedented danger, including extremely high risks of climate collapse and nuclear war.

  We now have the means to harm humanity and erode our planet to unprecedented levels and at unprecedented speed. We currently face the highest rates of violent conflict in more than 30 years. The threat of nuclear war brings the possibility of global annihilation, while cybersecurity and AI warfare capabilities posit questions that our current humanitarian law framework and institutions struggles to keep pace with. These security questions extend into other facets of life and global interaction, notably impacting on the levels of trust and cooperation among and within nations.

  To give another example: pandemics are not new. From the bubonic plague to the 1918-1920 flu pandemic, humanity has confronted these challenges from immemorial times. But never before have we had the level of interaction, travel and cross-border exchange that has enabled a pandemic to expand so quickly and widely as COVID-19 did.

  In sum, all challenges have become more global, complex and consequential. As a result, the state system envisioned in 1945 no longer meets our needs. The gap between the current needs of humanity and the planet and our institutions’ capacity and intent to address them continues to widen.

  We are convinced that humankind cannot survive another world conflict and yet we live in a world full of conflicts. This is why Citizens for Global Solutions advocates for global cooperation and common security through a democratic world federated system.

  Why is there a need for citizens to promote solutions for these global problems?

  Citizens are a necessary part of this equation, and they have always been. But they were removed from the corridors of power as our current institutions grew, and it is not to be expected that those who benefit from the current system would be willing to change that.

  To change global institutions effectively, we need to push for a wider range of voices to come to the table. For instance, a key success of Citizens for Global Solutions was as the early leader and continued champion of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), which started as a small collective of civil society groups committed to putting an end to impunity and holding those responsible for the most heinous crimes accountable and grew into the world’s largest international justice coalition. It continues to this day, working for the universality of the International Criminal Court (ICC) beyond its 124 current member states and for its effectiveness as a means of accountability, and a force for the rule of law as opposed to the rule of might.

  Today, we carry that spirit forward through a variety of educational, outreach and advocacy initiatives, including dedicated youth programming, to advance our foundational vision of a democratic world federation across future generations.

  What are the global governance dysfunctions that most urgently need to be corrected?

  While being one of humanity’s greatest achievements, the United Nations (UN) system and the global governance apparatus that supports it is also deeply flawed. It is often underutilised and sometimes ill-utilised. It is based on a deeply asymmetrical and outdated concept of governance based on the Westphalian state model. While it was founded with noble ideals, it also reflects the biases and incentive structures of a small portion of the world’s population, from a small set of nation states, represented by an even smaller elite within those nation states.

  Rather than victor’s justice, what we got is victors’ governance. This is a system that inevitably struggles to uphold and often betrays the fundamental principles articulated in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which assert the rights of all humans, future generations and our planet. This inconsistency challenges our understanding of global governance and our duties and responsibilities as part of it.

  In practice, the inequalities and inequities that are both baked into current systems and brought in through politicisation and manipulation obstruct the cooperation needed to achieve true solutions for some of the profound global challenges we face.

  No nation has succeeded in creating a society that fully meets the needs of all of its people. When this is extrapolated to the global level, the deficit is even starker. Democratic states typically have some form of governance in which the branches of government balance and sustain one another. In the current UN system, the current global governance structure, what we have is a monopod. We have a strong but partisan executive, a judiciary that is to some extent under-utilised and under-resourced, and are completely lacking a legislative branch. This is a deep flaw that needs to be corrected.

  But I believe we have the tools at hand to do so. We do not stand on the sidelines and watch these dynamics as spectators but actively participate in finding constructive solutions – and animating people to achieve them.

  What kind of change would need to happen so that global problems are addressed with genuinely global solutions?

  Citizens for Global Solutions ultimately pursues the reimagined global governance architecture of a democratic world federation, a governance model that recognises global interdependence and supersedes narrow national interests. Along the way, we champion short-term and medium-term goals to realise this overarching objective.

  For instance, to safeguard human rights and uphold international law, we advocate for an effective, well-resourced ICC and International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the primary means of dispute resolution among states. We continue to actively participate in the CICC as it plays an essential role in the ICC’s universality and efficacy. The CICC is a great example of a civil society coalition mobilising to strengthen the global justice ecosystem.

  We are now taking that approach forward through a campaign called Legal Alternatives to War (LAW not War), of which we are a founding member. LAW not War seeks to bolster the ICJ – the foundational justice institution envisioned by the UN Charter – as the means for states to resolve their conflicts in courtrooms rather than on battlefields.

  While we want to safeguard and uphold the existing UN human rights mechanisms, we also urge a more transparent and democratic UN. We advocate for comprehensive reforms to the Security Council and General Assembly, and for the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) and a standing UN peacekeeping body.

  The call for a UNPA, in particular, comes in recognition of a democratic deficit in the current global governance architecture. The UN functions ostensibly as an executive branch, without the checks and balances or the democratic accountability that come with a legislative body.

  We also support new global institutions and mechanisms, including an International Anti-Corruption Court, an international climate governance body and a World Court of Human Rights. Each of these bodies is a response to recognised gaps in the current international judicial landscape and would have distinct jurisdiction complementary to existing global, regional and domestic courts in a complementary judicial ecosystem.

  We also support Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance, a coalition dedicated to convening, catalysing and empowering experts and stakeholders to find the collaborative, cross-border governance solutions needed to halt further environmental degradation, climate crises and the harms we are inflicting upon our planet.

  As we navigate these challenges, we eagerly anticipate the upcoming Summit of the Future, a UN Summit aimed at enhancing cooperation, addressing global governance gaps and reaffirming commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Charter. We believe this summit will play a pivotal role in reinvigorating our multilateral system, transforming it into a dynamic framework where global challenges are met with global solutions.

  What role is civil society playing in the run-up to the Summit of the Future?

  The Summit of the Future will be a unique collective moment for civil society. It is tasked with adopting an action-oriented outcome document, the Pact for the Future, the zero draft of which was released in January by co-facilitators Germany and Namibia. It’s established five key themes for the summit: sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance. All of these themes are intersectional and some are also crosscutting.

  This process is also likely to establish other structures, such as a UN Special Envoy for Future Generations. It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform and revitalise the UN as we know it.

  Civil society is playing an incredibly active role, particularly under the umbrella of the Coalition for the UN We Need. For the Summit of the Future to succeed in truly reimagining our global governance architecture, we need a very diverse array of people and organisations around the world to give input and feedback. To this end, a global civil society forum will take place in Nairobi in May, a few months before the Summit, to finalise a People’s Pact for the Future, which will collect the aspirations and demands of civil society worldwide.

  ---

  Get in touch with Citizens for Global Solutions through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@GlobalSolutions and@RAShoot on Twitter.

  

  

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘We cannot address 21st-century challenges with 20th-century foundations’

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Nudhara Yusuf,Executive Coordinator of the Global Governance Innovation Network at theStimson Center, about the deficits of the current global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  The Stimson Center is a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank that promotes international peace and security and shared prosperity through applied research and independent analysis, global engagement and policy innovation.

  Nudhara also serves as Coordinator of theGlobal Futures Forum and as Global Youth Coordinator at theCoalition for the UN We Need.

   

  What were the key global challenges identified during the Doha Forum?

  The Doha Forum is a global platform for dialogue, bringing together leaders in policy to discuss critical global challenges and build innovative and action-driven networks that champion diplomacy, dialogue and diversity. This year it centred around the theme of building shared futures, addressing risks and opportunities.

  As it couldn’t ignore the current context, we delved into the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the humanitarian situation in the region, while also acknowledging other crises occurring elsewhere in the world. We analysed the context and the path forward, both in terms of response and recovery, including the role of the broader international community.

  Two other big themes emerged during the forum. One of them was artificial intelligence and frontier technology, of which we explored the implications, risks and opportunities.

  The other theme was the climate crisis. As it closely followed COP28, the Forum paid considerable attention to the ways the future of humanity is being shaped by climate change and the steps needed to address it. Insights from the Climate Governance Commission and other stakeholders contributed significantly to these discussions.

  To what extent is the existing global governance system is able to address these global problems?

  The effectiveness of the current global governance system hinges on how we define the role of global institutions. If we consider their ability to bring diverse agenda items to the table, I will largely agree that it works. Over the past decade there has been a notable increase in awareness regarding global issues and the foresight needed to address them. However, there’s room for improvement in democratising the agenda-setting process. To that effect, We The Peoples is campaigning for a United Nations (UN) World Citizens’ Initiative that would allow people to bring agenda items to the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.

  While identifying problems seems to be a strength of the system, the challenge lies in transitioning from identifying issues to implementing effective solutions. The road ahead demands solution-oriented approaches, but again, a significant challenge here lies in the inequalities and remnants of mistrust from past global injustices. Effective solutions will require gestures of multilateral trust-building.

  A big problem is that we are trying to address 21^st century challenges with 20^th century foundations. The UN was established in 1945, based on assumptions that belong to that era. How can it function on those same principles today? Take for example the global financial system, different on so many levels – with different stakeholders, practices and policies – from the one that existed when the Bretton Woods systems were created. It is worth also simply considering context: the UN was created at a time of post-war optimism; how do we create a new understanding of peace and security that reflects the need for positive peace in an increasingly tense geopolitical environment? We keep trying to stretch a system that is based on a logic from several decades ago. We need to rethink the basics.

  This mismatch hinders our ability to address crises effectively. At the most, it allows for limited solutions that serve as band-aids rather than address the complex and connected causes of crises.

  What changes are you advocating for?

  The Summit for the Future, coming up in September 2024, is an invitation to rethink the fundamentals of the current global governance system. This summit is expected to result in a Pact for the Future, an outcome document negotiated among governments. It will be an opportunity to rethink the fundamentals of the global governance system in a more future-oriented manner.

  The Pact for the Future will encompass five key chapters: sustainable development and financing for development, peace and security, science, technology and digital governance, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance. The Coalition for the UN We Need and the Global Governance Innovation Network are working on reform proposals for all five chapters.

  We are calling for inclusive global governance through several civil society initiatives including the We The People’s campaign and the UNMute Civil Society campaign. As an umbrella platform, the Coalition for the UN We Need is crafting a People’s Pact for the Future to support the Pact for the Future that will be negotiated by governments.

  Born out of the Global Futures Forum held in March 2023, the People’s Pact draws on the perspectives of people worldwide, resulting in three dozen recommendations. We will refine it in the run-up to the Summit in the hope that it will provide valuable insights for the UN system and member states, fostering a collaborative dialogue with civil society.

  To facilitate dialogue and collaboration, the Coalition for the UN We Need is also supporting the UN Department of Global Communications in organising a UN civil society conference in Nairobi in May 2024 toward the Summit of the Future.

  How can civil society have a bigger say in shaping future global governance?

  International civil society is eager to be a part of the conversation. While many raise questions on the way forward with international systems and the UN, there is a very active community that wants to participate – but how they are effectively and meaningfully included is a whole different question.

  We have moved from lack of recognition to some formal acknowledgement of civil society’s role in global governance to calls for networked and inclusive multilateralism. But the extent of civil society’s involvement is still constantly being debated. For example, the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda report calls for greater UN system engagement with civil society through focal points, but consultations for the Summit of The Future have been held behind closed doors. There is a tension between the need for member states to have candid discussions and the call for transparency to enable civil society to provide input and hold member states accountable.

  Despite these challenges, there have been notable wins, the UN Civil Society Conference set to take place in Nairobi being one of them. The hope is that member states will engage meaningfully. I personally think that COP28, for instance, has been one of the best in terms of young people’s active involvement. Young participants received increased media attention as they took part in panel discussions on the main stages, in negotiations and even as heads of some of delegations. This huge achievement is the result of young people beginning to truly understand how the system works and having become empowered to take part in it.

  However, challenges persist, particularly in regions where civic space is closed.

   

  ---

  Get in touch with the Stimson Center through itswebsite and follow@StimsonCenter and@nudharaY on Twitter.

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘We must reaffirm the relationship between the rule of law and human rights’

  CIVICUS speaks with Francesca Restifo, Senior Human Rights Lawyer and UN Representative of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Established in 1947, the International Bar Association is the world’s leading organisation of international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies. With a membership of over 80,000 lawyers and 190 bar associations and law societies spanning all continents, it influences the development of international law and helps shape the future of the legal profession throughout the world. The IBAHRI was created in 1995 to provide human rights training and technical assistance for legal practitioners and institutions, strengthening their capacity to promote and protect human rights effectively under a just rule of law.

  What does the IBAHRI do, and how does it interact with international human rights organisations?

  A leading institution in international fact-finding, the IBAHRI produces expert reports with key recommendations, delivering timely and reliable information on human rights and the legal profession. It supports lawyers and judges who are arbitrarily harassed, intimidated or arrested through advocacy at the United Nations (UN) and domestic levels and provides training and trial monitoring. We advocate for the advancement of human rights in the administration of justice, focusing on UN human rights mechanisms and pushing onto the UN’s agenda justice issues such as judicial independence and protection for all legal professions as essential building blocks to sustaining or reinstating the rule of law.

  To achieve this, the IBAHRI also trains lawyers, judges and bar associations to promote and protect human rights at the domestic level and engage with UN human rights mechanisms. For example, the IBAHRI is working with Afghan lawyers and judges in exile, and particularly with women, to denounce the ongoing gender persecution in Afghanistan. The IBAHRI works with lawyers and academics to promote jurisprudence to punish the specific crime of gender-based apartheid.

  We are also supporting Ukrainian lawyers on issues of accountability for war crimes, including via domestic jurisdiction and training them on international fair trail standards.

  To what extent do current global governance institutions protect the rule of law around the world?

  In January 2023, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that ‘We are at grave risk of the Rule of Lawlessness’. Today, adherence to the rule of law is more important than ever. As Guterres pointed out, from the smallest village to the global stage, the rule of law is all that stands between peace and brutal conflict or repression.

  In Palestine, Sudan and Ukraine, we are witnessing systematic war crimes committed by states. We are witnessing increasing violations of the UN Charter with the annexation, resulting from the threat or use of force, of a state’s territory by another state.

  The ongoing devastating conflicts in Syria and Yemen have resulted in atrocities, thousands of deaths and incommensurable suffering. Unconstitutional changes in government are deplorably back in fashion. The collapse of the rule of law in Myanmar has led to a cycle of violence, repression and severe human rights violations. In Afghanistan and Iran, systematic attacks against women’s and girls’ rights that amount to gender persecution are creating an unprecedented regime of gender-based apartheid. In Belarus, Russia, Venezuela and many other places, authoritarian regimes are silencing the opposition and cracking down on civil society and civic space, repressing peaceful protests with excessive force and violence. In Haiti we see a severe institutional crisis coupled with an almost non-existent rule of law, leading to widespread human rights abuses and the escalation of crime rates.

  At a time plagued with conflicts, division, crackdown and mistrust, states continue to contravene international law with impunity. Created to anchor the protection of rights, the multilateral system is in deep crisis. In the aftermath of the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we must reaffirm the strong and mutually reinforcing relationship between the rule of law, accountability and human rights.

  Do you view these failures as linked to structural flaws in the global governance system?

  The collapse of the rule of law, coupled with failures by the UN system to establish just and effective responses and address global challenges, has undermined trust in leaders and institutions. These challenges are interconnected and can only be addressed by interconnected responses, through a reinvigorated multilateralism, placing the UN, its Charter and its values at the centre of joint efforts.

  We are facing a crisis of trust, a disconnect between people and the institutions that are supposed to serve and protect them, with many people left behind and no longer confident that the system works for them. We need to rethink ways to ensure effective responses.

  In his Our Common Agenda report, the UN Secretary-General emphasised the need for the UN to support states, communities and people in rebuilding the social contract as a foundation for sustaining peace, stressing that justice is an essential dimension of the social contract.

  However, we witness ever-increasing justice gaps, with many justice systems delivering only for the few. It has been estimated that 1.5 billion people have unmet justice needs. In many places around the world, women effectively enjoy only three quarters of the legal rights of men. Legal disempowerment prevents women, vulnerable groups and victims from using the law to protect and defend themselves.

  When states fail, the UN should mobilise against impunity and hold perpetrators to account through fair, independent judicial proceedings.

  What are the most needed reforms in the area of global governance?

  First, it is time to rethink, renew and rebuild trust in international institutions and support governments to rebuild the social contract with their people and within societies. UN institutions must start by rebuilding, restoring and sustaining the rule of law, both internationally and domestically, by supporting victims and survivors and providing access to justice, remedy and reparation. To do so, a more inclusive, effective and principled multilateral system is urgently needed.

  Communities need to see results reflected in their daily lives. People need to see their rights realised and need to know they can seek justice if their rights are violated.

  Means are within reach, but they need to be better used and reformed to ensure their effectiveness. From the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the UN Human Rights Council, with its accountability mechanisms including fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry, there are institutions and mechanisms to promote and reinforce the rule of law. But they need to be enabled to provide effective solutions. For instance, if the Human Rights Council’s commissions of inquiry collect, analyse and preserve evidence of atrocity crimes, there must be states willing to use that evidence to bring cases before the ICJ.

  The International Criminal Court is the central institution of the international criminal justice system, but the veto power enshrined in article 27(3) of the UN Charter systematically impedes the prosecution of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. All states have a responsibility to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and ensure that such crimes are ended and punished when they occur, as per the 1948 Genocide Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international law. However, we have recently seen the excessive use of the veto preventing the UN Security Council (UNSC) from exercising its function to address the most severe threats to international peace and security. Permanent UNSC members have a particular responsibility in this regard, given the powers vested in the Council to adopt effective measures to restore international peace and security and prevent or end such crimes. A reform of the UN system is needed to limit the veto, and in the meantime, we need to think of creative ways to overcome it.

  We need to empower justice systems to better and more effectively use the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute crimes under international law and hold perpetrators to account. Through international cooperation, states should support domestic trials. For example, UN member states must be more proactive in supporting Ukraine’s justice system to conduct effective investigations and prosecute international crimes with fair trial guarantees.

  Some interesting developments that may help address accountability gaps deserve some attention. Although international law is largely concerned with states’ rather than individuals’ obligations, the so-called Global Magnitsky Acts and the system of individual sanctions represent an interesting paradigm shift in the field of accountability for violations of international human rights law, including regarding corruption.

  The Global Magnitsky Acts have been considered one of the most promising ways to address serious human rights violations and corruption in the future. They were established in response to the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow jail cell in 2009, following which his client and US-born financier Bill Browder led a 10-year fight to strengthen national legal frameworks and responses to alleged gross violations of human rights. This led to a legal revolution in several countries across regions, including Canada, the USA and the European Union and its member states.

  How is civil society in general, and the IBAHRI specifically, advocating for reforms?

  Lawyers are at the forefront of the struggle for the protection of human rights. Without an independent, competent legal profession, victims of human rights violations are unable to exercise their right to redress. Lawyers, judges and bar associations have a vital role to play in promoting accountability, ending impunity and ensuring remedy for victims and survivors.

  As part of the world’s leading organisation of international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies, the IBAHRI is ideally placed to engage the global legal profession with such mechanisms and to advocate for the advancement of human rights and the independence of the legal profession.

  We work with the legal professions at large to sustain the rule of law, ensure implementation of international human rights standards, enhance judicial independence and fair trial guarantees and encourage an effective and gender-responsive administration of justice. The IBAHRI supports the work of lawyers and legal professionals to bring about accountability for war and atrocity crimes, provide legal defence to those arbitrarily and unjustly detained, improve legal frameworks, promote the common acceptance of legal rules and encourage greater engagement with the UN system.

  Get in touch with the IBAHRI through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@IBAHRI on Twitter.

  ---

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘When there is political will, states are able to uphold their responsibility to protect’

  CIVICUS speaks with Elisabeth Pramendorfer, Geneva Representative, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P), about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  The GCR2P is a civil society organisation (CSO) that works to uphold the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, which the United Nations (UN) adopted in 2005. This principle seeks to ensure that the international community mobilises to prevent and stop the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

  What is the Responsibility to Protect?

  The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is an international norm that seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to prevent and respond to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing – often referred to as mass atrocity crimes. R2P was conceptualised as a political and operational response to the failures of the international community to prevent and respond to the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was unanimously adopted at the 2005 UN World Summit. 

  R2P is a political commitment and call to action. It means that sovereignty does not provide a state with carte blanche to commit crimes against its own population. It stipulates that every state has the primary responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocity crimes and that the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist them in meeting that responsibility. If a state is manifestly failing to protect its population, the international community must take appropriate collective action in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.

  In practice, this means that states have a responsibility to build and strengthen an atrocity prevention architecture by ensuring human rights protection, guaranteeing equal access to justice and a strong rule of law, and memorialising and acknowledging past atrocities, among other measures.

  A variety of measures may be involved in assisting other states in upholding R2P, such as providing technical assistance and capacity strengthening or supporting military and police training. In situations where atrocity crimes are imminent or ongoing, the toolbox of action may include the use of good offices, mediation, negotiation or other forms of preventive diplomacy; the imposition of arms embargoes and targeted sanctions against identified perpetrators; the establishment of UN-mandated investigative mechanisms to document and report on atrocity crimes; and the deployment of peacekeeping missions.

  It is key for the response to any given situation to be context-specific, based on the unique drivers, motivations and risk factors of violence, the enabling and mitigating factors that are in place, and an in-depth understanding of who is targeted and why – all of which, even within the same crisis, may change over time and pose different risks to different groups. This is what we call ‘atrocity prevention’.

  How well are existing global governance institutions fulfilling this responsibility?

  Since 2005, we have seen remarkable institutional progress in advancing R2P as a political norm. There have been more than 90 resolutions by the UN Security Council and over 75 by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that refer to R2P, including for situations in the Central African Republic, North Korea, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Many governments around the world have committed to the advancement and implementation of R2P, including by becoming members of inter-governmental networks such as the UN Group of Friends of R2P and the Global Network of R2P Focal Points, which also includes regional organisations such as the European Union and the Organization of American States.

  The UN General Assembly meets annually to exchange on best practices and lessons learned in upholding our individual and shared R2P. The UN has an office, the Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and R2P, fully dedicated to advancing R2P. Longstanding efforts to mainstream atrocity prevention on a national, regional and multilateral level have helped us better understand how to identify risk factors of atrocity crimes and develop early warning models.

  Yet the international community continues to fail to uphold universal human rights and prevent atrocity crimes – in China, Ethiopia, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar, Sudan and Syria, among many others. It also struggles in ensuring accountability and ending impunity.

  While R2P is the most effective principle around which the international community can coalesce when vulnerable populations face the threat of atrocity crimes, it does not have independent agency. As with so many other protection agendas, implementing R2P and making atrocity prevention a living reality rests largely with governments as political actors. And more often than not, political leaders fail to implement principles and institutions fail to uphold mandates.

  It is a sad reality of our job that politics and governments’ strategic interests often come in the way of meaningful action and that some serious country situations simply don’t receive the attention they should. Western governments’ extraordinary solidarity with Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal act of aggression shows how rapidly the international community can respond, including by establishing investigations at the UNHRC, imposing an expansive sanctions regime, opening an investigation at the International Criminal Court and obtaining provisional measures by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These much-needed actions show that when there is political will states are able to uphold their responsibility to protect populations at risk and turn condemnation into action. At the same time, it has raised valid and long-overdue questions of why we have not seen a similar response to crises in Ethiopia, Myanmar or Sudan.

  Do you think this failure to respond is linked to structural flaws in the global governance system? 

  The international community has all the tools and measures to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes effectively – and any other human rights violations and abuses, for that matter. Implementing R2P means nothing other than implementing existing obligations under international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Refugee Convention. But states continuously fail to make consistent use of this remarkable protection regime, both in an individual and collective capacity.

  We are witnessing a hierarchy of victimhood and an arbitrariness in compassion and condemnation. Mounting evidence of atrocity crimes in Gaza has revealed blatant double standards in our response to crisis situations, particularly by states that pride themselves as champions of human rights, justice and international law. So I don’t think it is structural flaws in the existing global governance system that explain our failure to protect people everywhere and at all times – it is the lack of states making principled and consistent use of it regardless of where atrocities are imminent or ongoing.

  As we have commemorated 75 years of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention, we must remember that legal and political protection instruments – including R2P – only have meaning and value if we as an international community and as individual stakeholders are committed to respecting and upholding them anywhere and at all times. Failure to do so will seriously harm our credibility and legitimacy when we do take action and call for respect for those norms and values.

  At the same time, we must ensure that affected communities, human rights defenders and victim and survivor groups are systematically included in policy discussions and decision-making processes. For a crisis response to be effective, it needs to be transformative, rooted in the needs of affected communities and tied to long-term efforts to further peace, development and human rights.

  How is civil society in general, and the GCR2P in particular, advocating for R2P?

  Although R2P as a political commitment rests with states, most times it is CSOs that are the driving force behind pressuring governments to adhere to it. Our work and that of countless civil society activists around the world is fundamental in reminding states that they not only have a responsibility to protect their own populations but also mustn’t look away when rights are violated elsewhere.

  Through advocacy with UN member states, regional organisations and the multilateral system, we provide strategic guidance to governments, UN officials and other key stakeholders on what needs to be done – by whom, how and when – to prevent mass atrocities. We wouldn’t be able to do this if it weren’t for the civil society colleagues around the world who are at the forefront of documenting violations and abuses, holding their government and others to account and providing support and assistance to victims, survivors and affected communities, often at great personal danger. Our job is to amplify their voices, expertise, demands and calls to action in the arenas we operate in.

  One aspect of our work I would like to highlight is the fight against impunity. Ensuring accountability for mass atrocity crimes – which may include truth-telling, reparations, criminal investigations and transitional justice processes – is not only an end in itself but can help deter future mass atrocity crimes. We have worked hand in hand with human rights defenders and affected communities around the world to advance accountability efforts, including by leading campaigns for the establishment of UN investigations into atrocity crimes in Ethiopia, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, South Sudan, Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen, as well as the establishment of an Independent Institution on Missing Persons in Syria, and contributing to efforts so that The Gambia filed a case against Myanmar before the ICJ for violations of provisions of the Genocide Convention.

  I would like to pay tribute to all our colleagues around the world who tirelessly fight to ensure ongoing attention on injustice, violence and suffering for even the most forgotten crisis. Every small success – be it advocating for special sessions to discuss an emerging crisis at the UNHRC, the opening of a universal jurisdiction case against perpetrators, or a government’s decision to re-engage with the international system and commit to genuine reform – is a step in the right direction. Every time the international community puts the spotlight on atrocity perpetrators somewhere, it sends a signal to those committing similar abuses elsewhere.

  Get in touch with the GCR2P through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@GCR2P and@ElisabethGCR2P on Twitter.

  ---

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