SOCS2024

• 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: ‘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: ‘We must take up the declaration of human rights to lead the way’

  CIVICUS speaks about global governance challenges with Marta Benavides, a spiritual leader who has led numerous sustainable peace initiatives in and outside of El Salvador, for which she has had to go into exile several times. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 as part of the 1,000 Women of Peace initiative, Marta leads national and international networks that advocate for a culture of peace, sustainability, inclusion and the rights of women, Indigenous peoples, traditionally excluded groups and the Earth.

  
  How do you assess the current role of the United Nations (UN) within the global governance system?
  The UN is a valuable instrument that shows us the way to live in peace on a healthy planet. Within the UN, one of the most essential bodies, because of the issues it works on, is the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). It provides frameworks and horizons to be reached. However, it is one of the programmes and processes that receives the least attention.

  
  Several important processes are currently taking place within the UN framework, such as Agenda 2030, which is being widely misrepresented, although it could and should be a valuable framework. If states were to take it seriously, it would serve to assess their performance on each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and identify areas to work on for the common good and the health of the planet, as well as strategies to implement to that end.

  
  In the case of my country, El Salvador, which currently has a serious deforestation problem, Agenda 2030 could serve to understand how we should proceed in accordance with the rights of Mother Earth and work on the challenges we face today to protect the environment and mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, however, this is not officially considered a priority and those who undertake actions to this end are persecuted and punished.
  
  The UN plays a key role in coordinating and brokering commitments between states, particularly in such urgent areas as climate change. Right now, COP28, the annual climate conference, is taking place in the United Arab Emirates. We should be discussing strategies to tackle climate change, yet agreements to continue extracting fossil fuels are still being promoted. We fail to realise that we are part of nature and must live in harmony and peace with nature, so that we can also live in harmony and peace with each other.

  
  What is the way to develop a culture of peace?
  To develop a culture of peace we can and should follow the example of Indigenous peoples. They are the ones who have safeguarded life on the planet all along. They believe that every decision must take into account its impact on the collective, and not just for the present but for seven generations to come. If each generation follows this principle, a culture of peace is established. Such a transformation requires deep, systemic and structural social change.

  
  A culture of peace requires that the problem of poverty be addressed from its roots. The world as it stands today, with two-thirds of its population living in poverty and extreme poverty, is unviable. We must work collectively to meet the basic needs of every human being to live in justice, peace and dignity, thinking both of the present and future generations and caring for nature, which sustains and supports life.

  
  Unfortunately, there are few of us today who adopt this way of thinking and living. Many take what they want by force, from nature and from their neighbours, without caring for the wellbeing of others. Therefore, the existential challenge of these times is to live and act consciously, even when the pressures of today’s world demand the opposite from us.

  
  My support for the culture of peace was born from the teachings of my mother and father, who gave me such guide for living, and consolidated as a result of my work during the civil war in El Salvador. In the mid-1970s, when I was working supporting humanitarian work with Monsignor Oscar Romero, I realised that people were not inherently needy, but that their social circumstances made them so, so it was necessary to change those circumstances. At that time this was a very sacrificing and dangerous job: we received constant threats and finally, one night, Monsignor Romero was assassinated. He courageously and lovingly chose to go as far as necessary, demonstrating his character and his integrity by standing by the people. His legacy was and is to walk with the people, to accompany them, to stand in solidarity and be one with them.

  
  I also chose to do so, by living for the revolution rather than dying for it. I didn’t embrace martyrdom. I knew that my task was to live as long as possible and to carry out as many transformative tasks as I could. And I have done so. For me, that is the meaning of living simply, which is not the same as simply living. It is living a meaningful and useful life in sustainability.

  
  What initiatives is civil society working on to promote a culture of peace and human rights?
  There are many civil society-led proposals to promote a culture of peace and human rights. However, the challenge lies in approaching these projects in a sustainable way, one that is committed every day and at every step to creating a peaceful world and a healthy planet. This is the practice of planetary- global citizenship. Initiatives are often pursued with goodwill but in isolation, without understanding the importance of working intentionally and collaboratively, collectively and consciously.

  
  For example, while governments should develop national plans to implement the necessary climate commitments at the local level, few states have developed effective national plans to avoid exceeding 1.5 degrees of global temperature rise. In the face of this official failure, it is civil society that is organising to propose solutions.
  
  To create conditions for social governance, the sovereign people must exercise their right and duty to work alongside the authorities, reminding civil servants that they are our employees. But it is governments, with their teams and resources, that should bring together all parts of the population, particularly the least privileged who suffer most from the impacts of climate change. This would allow for a just transition without people and the planet being exploited.

  
  In other words, there are good projects, but one-off projects are not enough. We must transform the way we live to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace that allows all human rights to be respected individually and collectively and at all levels, from local to global.

  
  Are you working on any campaign for UN reform?
  I have been working with the UN since the 1970s. In the beginning, the process I supported most was the decolonisation of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Back then, the central issue was the struggle for the independence of the remaining colonies.

  
  Today, I consider it crucial to focus on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Their active participation in decision-making processes must be guaranteed by respecting their right to free, prior and informed consent and their participation in implementation. This is essential for the practice of true global governance.

  
  It is also important to move in the direction indicated by two UN Security Council resolutions that have not been given the importance they deserve. Resolution 2,250 of 2015 calls for the inclusion of young people in decision-making from an early age. This approach is the framework for the effective and transformative work of all post-2015 UN agendas, including Agenda 2030 with the SDGs and Agenda 2036 on Habitat. Young people and children must be able to participate in the process of creating the societies that we need to live in peace, on a healthy planet.

  
  Resolution 1,325 of 2000 recognises and affirms the right of women, who bear the brunt of all types of conflict, to participate effectively in peacebuilding processes.

  
  It is worrying that neither of these resolutions have been seriously taken into account to lead the way, so reform projects are adrift. The upcoming UN Summit of the Future in September 2024 will be a crucial opportunity for young people and human rights defenders to contribute to shaping the UN we aspire to and need if we are to have the future envisaged in the post-2015 agendas.

  
  This commitment means reviewing existing agreements and working to reform the UN and its founding documents to provide guidelines for the practice of planetary-global citizenship that prioritises the wellbeing of nature and people. We must take up the declaration of human rights to lead the way. This is the challenge we must not postpone. The UN was created for the promotion and maintenance of lasting and sustainable peace, and today more than ever it is our challenge and privilege to work towards its achievement.

  ---

  
  Follow @benavides_marta 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.

• GLOBAL: ‘Only through adherence to humanitarian principles and the rule of law can we shift away from armed conflict’

  CIVICUS speaks with Neshan Gunasekera, an international lawyer from Sri Lanka, about the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of the case brought by South Africa against Israel under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

  Neshan is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lead Counsel on Peace, Justice and Governance at the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, Council member at the World Future Council and director of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms.

  What’s the ICJ and why is it important?

  The ICJ is the main judicial organ of the United Nations (UN) and its role is to help peacefully settle disputes between member states and provide advice on matters relating to international law. Its creation was the result of a long journey to find peaceful ways to solve international disputes.

  In 2024, we will be commemorating 125 years since the founding of the ICJ’s earliest predecessor, the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This was one of the biggest achievements of the 1899 Peace Conference held at The Hague in the Netherlands. The extensive bloodshed that marked the 19th century prompted world leaders to gather and discuss how to transition from the outdated notion of war as a way to resolve disputes and towards preventive diplomacy, and the result was the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a forum for member states to bring their cases for resolution rather than resorting to armed conflict, violence or aggression as tools of diplomacy.

  World leaders at The Hague also discussed how armed conflict should be conducted, and how it could be limited. The outcomes of these discussions are referred to as the Hague Law and, taken together with the Geneva Law, resulting from the Geneva Conference of 1864, are collectively known as the 1949 Geneva Conventions that are the basis of international humanitarian law.

  Unfortunately, these notions took a backseat as the First World War erupted in 1914, and only resurged with the founding of the League of Nations in 1919. Three years later, the closest predecessor to the ICJ, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), was formed. While it heard some interesting cases, the PCIJ was also short-lived, as the League of Nations shut down as the world prepared for another world war.

  In 1945, when the UN was founded, the ICJ assumed its position as the highest judicial institution within the system and the Statute of the International Court of Justice became an integral part of the Charter of the UN. As it took forward PCIJ precedents, the ICJ has now accumulated over 100 years of jurisprudence.

  The ICJ is one of the most important tools ever established for peacefully resolving disputes between states. Its 15 judges are meant to represent all UN geographic regions, civilisations and legal systems worldwide, including Indigenous and traditional legal systems. This entails a huge responsibility, particularly when it comes to representing voices that are still marginalised or underrepresented, such as those of Indigenous peoples.

  The ICJ is now more relevant than ever because we are a critical time in history when we need urgently to correct our course. The danger of nuclear weapons going off becomes more real every day. And this is no longer the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: today’s nuclear arsenal can obliterate life as we know it.

  Why has South Africa brought a case against Israel before the ICJ?

  This case is intriguing because South Africa didn’t appear to be in direct conflict with Israel. But it didn’t need to: South Africa came to the Court alleging that Israel was violating the Genocide Convention, a treaty signed by most UN member states, including both Israel and South Africa. This convention grants all its signatories the right to bring a case before the ICJ against another if it’s suspected of committing, inciting or continuing to commit genocide.

  The ICJ has jurisdiction to hear contentious cases, including those where parties have entered into an agreement and to provide advisory opinions on matters pertaining to international law. It also has compulsory jurisdiction, although this is limited to states that accept it, and authority to provide interpretations of international treaties This means it can make binding rulings in legal disputes submitted to it by states and give advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of UN bodies, specialised agencies or member states. The South Africa v. Israel case is a contentious case, which means it will eventually produce a binding court ruling.

  What are the challenges of bringing genocide cases before the ICJ?

  Genocide is possibly one of the worst crimes recognised as such by the international community. The Genocide Convention was the very first human rights convention the UN agreed on in the aftermath of the Second World War.

  While there is considerable consensus on what constitutes genocide, it often takes decades to gather the necessary evidence to prove that genocide has been committed. Following the Second World War, a wealth of documentation was submitted as evidence of genocide, but the burden of proof was quite high to demonstrate the systematic and intentional engagement of individuals and states in genocidal practices. For individuals, this was dealt with under international criminal law and for states under international law.

  However, in recent years several cases of genocide have been presented before the Court and the burden of proof has been increasingly scrutinised.

  In 2019 The Gambia, also a state not directly involved in the conflict, brought a case against the state of Myanmar, alleging that Myanmar’s military and other security forces perpetrated genocide against its Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine province. It could do so because both were signatories of the Genocide Convention. In 2022, the ICJ decided it had jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention to hear the application filed by The Gambia.

  The case is ongoing, and in November 2023 several additional states joined The Gambia’s genocide case against Myanmar. This was subsequent to the provisional measures the ICJ issued in January 2020 requesting Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts against Rohingya people while the case continued, and to report regularly on its implementation of the order. Developments in this case, as well as earlier cases relating to genocide, are most relevant to current proceedings.

  Notably, unlike Myanmar, Israel did not contest South Africa’s jurisdiction to bring the case before the court; that seemed like a settled issue. Still, proving genocide can be a long and arduous process, particularly when people are afraid to bring evidence before the Court, although in this age of information and technology there’s a lot of video evidence to support these cases. But when it comes to genocide cases, what’s most challenging is proving criminal intent.

  Why’s it so hard to prove genocidal intent?

  The ICJ faces the daunting task of proving the deliberate attempt to eradicate an ethnic, political or religious group. This isn’t only about the amount of violence or the number of deaths, but about the intent to eliminate a specific group, including through means other than murder, such as taking away children.

  This is why the interim measures requested by South Africa are so crucial. South Africa requested the immediate suspension of all hostilities by the Israeli military and for entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza to be allowed. While it did not order Israel to cease hostilities as had been requested, the ICJ’s interim measures requested Israel to take all necessary steps to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide. Further, it requested it take all necessary measures to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, an order on which the respected judge appointed by Israel also agreed with the majority decision.

  This is key because in international relations statements made by prime ministers, presidents and other high officials, including military officers, are interpreted as reflections of a state’s intentions. What they say is weighed against their actions and could serve as a way of proving intent.

  What are the consequences of the ICJ’s interim measures?

  All ICJ rulings and orders are binding, so the interim measures impose an obligation on Israel to comply. Additionally, when the ICJ issues a judgment, opinion or interim measure on a topic, its application extends beyond the specific case that originated it. This is why we are starting to see a wider impact of the case South Africa brought to the ICJ.

  For instance, in the Netherlands, civil society groups have filed several cases against their government to prevent it entering into military agreements that could incite or support the violation of human rights and humanitarian law in Gaza.

  In other words, the ICJ case is enabling deeper discussions on how member states should respond to armed conflicts and how citizens can hold their governments accountable and ensure that tax money is not used to fuel armed conflict.

  The case also underscores the ICJ’s vital role and its accumulated work over the years. States are increasingly resorting to the ICJ. Between 1947 and 2000, the ICJ issued interim measures on nine to 10 instances, while from 2001 to 2023 it has done so almost a dozen times, and most of these measures have been complied with. Overall, between 1947 and 2023, the ICJ has heard close to 200 cases and its opinions have been mostly respected. As of October 2023, there were 20 cases before the ICJ, including 18 contentious cases and two requests for advisory opinions. The two cases seeking advisory opinions are important: one is about the  ‘Legal consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem’, filed by 53 UN member states with proceedings currently underway at the Hague. The other one is about the obligations of states regarding climate change, with a deadline of 22 March 2024 for UN member states to submit written statements.

  This demonstrates the growing influence of the ICJ in interpreting international law and its adherence across the world. It also underscores the significance of international law. It is only through adherence to humanitarian principles and the rule of law that we can shift away from armed conflict. It is our collective responsibility to prevent future generations experiencing prolonged cycles of violence in which human rights and basic humanity are compromised. It is our collective duty towards all species on our planet.

  What challenges does the ICJ face?

  The ICJ is an integral component of the UN Charter, and its rulings should guide the actions of every member state. Unfortunately, out of the 196 UN members, only 74 have so far accepted the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. To address this issue, a broad global civil society coalition supported by a group of likeminded UN member states has started the ‘LAW not War’ campaign to encourage other states to sign up and agree to its compulsory jurisdiction, so as to commit to go before the ICJ before resorting to the use of force.

  It’s also important to highlight that the ICJ does not operate in isolation. It is part of a broader network of international tribunals, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Criminal Court, as well as regional institutions like the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Further, national-level courts and tribunals also play a role. Understanding the interconnectedness of these systems is essential in assessing the international system of adjudication and to achieving an international rules-based order.

  In terms of impact on foreign and domestic policies, there is a discrepancy between what countries sign up to in the international arena and what they end up implementing domestically. The primary reason for this gap is that, although the ICJ’s rulings are binding, the Court lacks its own enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance and depends on principles of international law such as good faith and respecting promises made through treaties, also referred to as the ‘pacta sunt servanda’ principle. As a result, universal human rights principles are unevenly implemented at the domestic level.

  There is still clearly much to be achieved and we must come together, urgently and with agency, to work towards a peaceful and sustainable planet, based on the principles of international law.

  Get in touch with Neshan through LinkedIn.

  ---

  

  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 or any of the institutions the interviewee is a member of. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

• GLOBAL: ‘With a wealth tax on the biggest fortunes, extreme poverty can be eradicated’

  CIVICUS speaks about climate change, global inequality and the need for redistribution with Adrien Fabre, a France-based climate economistand founder of Global Redistribution Advocates (GRA).

  GRA is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes public debate about three global redistribution policies that enjoy wide public opinion support worldwide – a global wealth tax, a global climate plan and a global climate assembly – and advocates towards political parties in several countries to incorporate these into their agendas and programmes.

  What inspired you to become a climate economist and found GRA?

  I started my PhD in economics with the goal of understanding humanity’s problems and proposing solutions. I always wanted to give voice to every human, so I naturally specialised in running surveys. Then, in the context of the Yellow Vests protests that began in 2018, I surveyed French people about their attitudes towards climate policies. This sparked interest at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which called on me to conduct a similar survey in other countries. I seized the opportunity to ask people questions they had never been asked before, such as whether they supported a global tax on millionaires to finance low-income countries. I was amazed by the levels of support: more than 70 per cent in every country!

  I ran complementary surveys in Europe and the USA. I tried asking questions differently and tested policies in which the respondents would lose money, but the results were the same: people in western countries were willing to lose a few dozen euros per month to end climate change and global poverty. Furthermore, the support is sincere: you can read this scientific article or my Twitter thread for details.

  Now, if there is such strong support for global redistribution, why doesn’t anyone propose it or defend it in public debate? To advocate for global redistributive policies to transfer resources or power from high to low-income countries I launched GRA in April 2023.

  What are your proposals?

  We have three main proposals to promote wealth redistribution, environmental sustainability and global cooperation to address pressing global challenges. The first is a global wealth tax on individual wealth exceeding US$5 million, with half of the tax proceeds distributed to lower-income countries.

  This tax would spare 99.9 per cent of the world’s population, who have wealth below US$5 million. And if the tax were just two per cent, it would collect one per cent of the world’s GDP, which is more than the GDP of all low-income countries, home to 700 million people, combined. Our proposed tax schedule is moderate: two per cent for fortunes above US$5 million, six per cent for those above US$100 million and 10 per cent for those above US$1 billion. A tax of two per cent is far lower than the interests, rents and dividends such a fortune generates.

  Our second proposal is a global climate plan aimed at combatting climate change through a worldwide carbon emissions cap, implemented by a system of global emissions trading, and financing a global basic income.

  This plan would enter into force as soon as signatory countries cover 60 per cent of global carbon emissions. Participating countries would enforce a cap on carbon emissions, decreasing each year and down to net zero emissions after three decades, in line with the temperature target. Each year, emissions permits would be auctioned to firms that extract fossil fuels or import them from non-participating countries, making polluters pay. To cover the cost of emissions permits, firms would increase fossil fuel prices, which would in turn encourage individuals and businesses to change their equipment or adjust their habits, eventually reducing carbon emissions. The revenues from carbon pricing would fund a global basic income estimated at US$50 per month for each person over 15.

  This plan would bring a massive redistribution from countries with a carbon footprint higher than the global average – like OECD countries – to those with a lower-than-average carbon footprint, including most of Africa, South and Southeast Asia and Latin America. It includes mechanisms to encourage participation by all countries, such as a tariff on goods imported from non-participating countries in proportion to their carbon content, a provision allowing middle-income countries such as China to opt out from the mutualisation of revenues to guarantee that it would not lose from the plan while ensuring that it decarbonises with the same carbon price, and a provision facilitating the participation of subnational entities like California or the state of New York even if the federal level does not participate.

  The wealth tax and the climate plan would each redistribute one per cent of the world’s GDP from high to low-income countries every year. Extreme poverty can be eradicated. The average income in a country like the Democratic Republic of the Congo would double following the transfers.

  Our third proposition is that of a global climate assembly, comprised of representatives elected through proportional representation in participating nations, tasked with drafting a comprehensive treaty to address climate change globally. Before even the beginning of that experiment in democratic governance at the global scale, the assembly would bring a radical change, as the election campaign would foster a global public debate on climate justice.

  Please check our website for details: each policy has its own advocacy campaign, with a fully-fledged policy proposal, a petition and a video.

  Who are you targeting these proposals at, and how are you working to get the message across?

  We are targeting our campaigns at policymakers, scholars, civil society and lay people. Many scholars have endorsed our proposals. GRA is a member of civil society networks in each of our policy domains, and we are hoping that key CSOs will endorse our proposals. We have already met with cabinet members of various governments, including Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany and South Africa, as well as many European Union (EU) politicians. And we are sending dozens of emails every day to get more meetings. Once we get a book on our climate plan and the scientific article finished and published, we will reach out to the public. We will publish an open letter in widely read newspapers, calling on world leaders to discuss global redistributive policies at the United Nations (UN), the G20 and climate summits.

  Hopefully, we will get media attention and the movement will grow. It will help if well-known personalities, including celebrities, endorse our proposals. But it will take a social movement to make change happen, perhaps a global demonstration. Our hope is that a large coalition of political parties, CSOs and labour unions throughout the world endorse some common policies towards a sustainable and fair future – ours, or similar ones. This will likely strengthen the parties of the coalition and help them win elections. Our research shows that progressive candidates would gain votes if they endorsed global redistributive policies.

  What are the prospects of these proposals being implemented in the near future?

  Our proposals are getting more and more endorsements every day. The African Union just called for a global carbon price and will defend this idea in international negotiations.

  But our proposal that receives the largest support is the global wealth tax. The next European Parliament elections will be held in June 2024, and left-wing parties will campaign on a European wealth tax. We have proposed that one-third of this European wealth tax would be allocated to lower-income countries outside Europe, and there are good chances that some parties will take this forward. A petition in favour of a wealth tax has recently been signed by 130 members of the European Parliament, and politicians from all parties on the left and centre endorse our proposal. However, a majority in the European Parliament would not suffice, as this proposal would require unanimity at the Council of the EU, that is, the approval of each EU government.

  However, three things can help. First, Brazil will chair the G20 in 2024, and we hope that President Lula, along with other leaders, will put pressure on global north states for global redistribution. Second, it would help if US President Joe Biden included wealth taxes on the agenda of his re-election campaign. Third, the campaign for the 2024 European Parliament elections could create momentum for some countries to move forward, even if the EU does not.

  I am optimistic that wealth taxes will be implemented – perhaps not in 2024, but within the next decade. However, I fear negotiations might end up being overseen by the OECD, resulting in a disappointing agreement, as happened on international corporate taxation. Negotiations on international taxation must be hosted by the UN, not the OECD. And regarding the content of the negotiations, we should be vigilant of three elements: the exemption threshold, which should not exceed US$5 million; the tax rates, which should be progressive and not too low; and the distribution of revenues, a substantial part of which must go to low-income countries.

  Civil society mobilisation will be key to promoting the global wealth tax, making it a central campaign issue and turning it into effective international policy. You can help by signing our petitions, donating, or volunteering for GRA. GRA is also hiring, so feel free to contact us!

  What are your hopes and expectations regarding the upcoming COP28 climate summit?

  COPs sometimes bring good surprises. Last year, high-income countries finally accepted the principle of a fund to compensate vulnerable countries for the loss and damage from climate change, after 30 years of demands from the developing world.

  But I don’t expect any good news this year, as the upcoming COP28 in Dubai is chaired by the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company. More generally, I do not expect much from COPs because its decisions are made by consensus, so countries like Saudi Arabia can block any meaningful proposal. This is what led to the current system of nationally determined contributions: while all countries supposedly share the common goal of limiting global warming to ‘well below 2°C’, there are no binding commitments, no harmonised policies, no agreement on burden-sharing, and the sum of countries’ voluntary pledges is inconsistent with the common goal.

  To break the deadlock, states with ambitious climate goals should start negotiations in parallel with the UN framework. I think the EU and China should start bilateral negotiations. If they put forward something like the global climate plan that we propose, countries that would benefit from it would surely accept it, and more than 60 per cent of global emissions would be covered. This would put enormous pressure on other countries to join, and particularly other OECD countries such as the USA.

  ---

  Get in touch with Global Redistribution Advocates through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@GlobalRedistrib and@adrien_fabre on Twitter.

• GREECE: ‘The criminalisation of solidarity has had a chilling effect’

  CIVICUS speaks with Melina Spathari, Director of Strategy and Programmes at HumanRights360 (HR360), about theprosecution of civil society activists working with migrants and refugees in Greece.

  HR360 is a Greek human rights civil society organisation (CSO) that seeks toprotect the rights of all people, empowering them to exercise their rights, with a focus on the most disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, including migrants and refugees.

  What is the current situation for civil society activists and organisations helping migrants in Greece?

  As the United Nations Special Rapporteur for human rights defenders stated following her official visit to Greece in June 2022, ‘defenders in the country working to ensure the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are currently under severe pressure… At the tip of the spear are prosecutions, where acts of solidarity are reinterpreted as criminal activity, specifically the crime of people smuggling… The negative impact of such cases is multiplied by smear campaigns perpetuating this false image of defenders’.

  Since 2010, Greek ruling parties have demonised CSOs, criticising their use of public funding, to delegitimise their criticism of pushbacks of migrants and their condemnation of the conditions in reception and identification centres and refugee camps. In most cases, the allegations against CSOs later proved to be unfounded. This phenomenon is part of a worrying trend that negatively affects CSOs around the globe, which is why civil society has increasingly organised and developed strategies to resist and respond to the attacks they face from governments.

  Why is the Greek government criminalising solidarity with migrants and refugees?

  In the case of Greece, the speed and impetus of the ongoing crackdown has been fuelled by current trends in both international and domestic politics, involving hostile relations with Turkey and imminent elections in both countries. Deploying a witch-hunt against CSOs kills many birds with one stone: it helps the government gain votes from the far-right side of the political spectrum and helps it manage the damage caused to its reputation by wrong political decisions and neglectful practices. Last but not least, by vilifying CSOs that are active and vocal in the field of human rights, the authorities aspire to manipulate and silence civil society as a whole.

  And to some extent, it has worked. Criminalisation has had a chilling effect. There have been some attempts among civil society to gather, discuss, assess the situation and work on a joint strategy, but these actions didn’t flourish. CSOs are now afraid to raise their voice, and we understand them: they have good reason to be intimidated. Still, some acts of solidarity have taken place, especially when those targeted were respected veteran human rights defenders.

  Has HR360 been targeted?

  In November 2022, the authorities stepped up an attack against our organisation: they demonised HR360 for receiving foreign funding aimed at regranting and disclosed the personal financial situation of HR360’s founders. The public prosecutor began a preliminary investigation, which hasn’t yet produced any outcomes. No information has been revealed, nor has any criminal process been ordered. HR360 finds itself in limbo, facing huge administrative and financial consequences and experiencing severe impacts on staff morale.

  But HR360 is not the only victim of this vile smear campaign. In late 2022, the Prosecutor’s Office criminally charged Panagiotis Dimitras, director of the Greek Helsinki Monitor, and Tommy Olsen, founder and director of Aegean Boat Report, a Norwegian CSO that monitors and shares data about the movement of people in the Aegean Sea, for ‘forming a criminal organisation with the purpose of receiving details of citizens of third countries, who attempt to enter Greece illegally, in order to facilitate their illegal entry and stay’. Following the same pattern applied to HR360, Dimitras has been accused of repeatedly conducting activities aimed at gaining illegal income.

  What support does Greek civil society need to resist and continue doing its work?

  Greek civil society needs more international support, which is currently quite limited and restricted to its advocacy work – that is, it can be used to help migrants and refugees, but not for CSOs and activists to protect themselves and therefore retain the capacity to continue doing their work.

  Right now, what Greek activists and CSOs need the most is legal support, including funding to cover legal fees. And in terms of changing the situation in the long term, what’s also needed is a well-organised European awareness campaign highlighting both the vital work civil society is doing and the attacks the government is subjecting it to. This would be very helpful, since bad publicity at the European level is one of the things Greek authorities fear the most.

  ---

  Civic space in Greece is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. Its rating has recently beendowngraded.

  Get in touch with HR360 through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@rights360 and@Melina_Spathari onTwitter.

• GUATEMALA: ‘Judicial harassment and criminal prosecution have wearing effects’

  On World Press Freedom Day, CIVICUS speaks with Carlos Ernesto Choc, a Q’eqchi’ Mayan journalist with almost two decades of experience, about the criminalisation of journalism and the media in Guatemala.

  What are the conditions for journalists in Guatemala?

  The conditions for the practice of journalism in Guatemala are quite difficult. We face criminal prosecution by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and threats from various sources, including public officials that journalists are questioning or investigating. Defamation campaigns against journalists are also very concerning.

  The internet and social media are full of trolls who send threatening and defamatory messages. They discredit journalistic work and attacks naturally follow. These even come from the state, and particularly from public security agencies. The National Civil Police attack the media and journalists both in the context of demonstrations and at other times and places where they do not want coverage of events in order to preserve impunity for crimes or violations of rights perpetrated on the ground.

  Since 2015, aggressions against the press have only escalated. Now as well as being criminally prosecuted, judicially harassed, threatened, intimidated and vilified, you can be thrown into prison. To be able to do this, they accuse you of charges that are normally used to fight organised crime, such as illicit association, as in my case, or money laundering, as in the case of my colleague Rubén Zamora. In other words, we are accused of being criminals and prosecuted under accusations of having links to organised crime, leading land invasions or instigating crime. These are clearly fabricated accusations, so we are baselessly, illegally detained. They ultimately have no way of proving their accusations, but in the meantime you remain subject to lengthy criminal proceedings.

  While all journalists are vulnerable in this country right now, those of us who investigate environmental aggression, human rights violations and issues related to drug trafficking and corruption are particularly vulnerable. These are really complicated issues and some investigate them anonymously because many have been murdered, the most recent being Eduardo Mendizabal, just over a month ago.

  The situation is getting more complicated by the day and some community journalists have chosen to emigrate and quit journalism. It is sad to see colleagues leave, and under the current government there have been more and more of them. I don’t see myself in exile, but I view this as an option of last resort.

  What is your situation after the criminalisation you have experienced?

  Mine has been a case of judicial persecution that has been used to attempt to silence me. It started in 2017 when I was investigating the pollution of Lake Izabal. I was documenting protests by fishers against mining and I captured the exact moment when a protester was killed by shots fired by the National Civil Police. The accusation against me came from the mining company, Solway Investment Group – a Russian-owned company based in Switzerland. In August 2017, a warrant for my arrest was issued. One hearing after another was postponed so only in January 2019 could I finally give testimony before the court, as a result of which I was handed an alternative measure to prison.

  When you have an alternative measure to imprisonment you are free under certain conditions: you are forced to visit the Public Prosecutor’s Office every 30 days to sign in and forbidden to be in any place where alcoholic drinks are sold, among other things. The security forces, the police, the authorities are watching where you are and waiting for you to commit a breach to be able to prosecute you. I see these alternative measures as forms of punishment that imply restrictions and limitations on your right to inform and be informed.

  In January 2022, I was criminally prosecuted again, under accusations by the National Civil Police of instigating violence during a protest by Indigenous communities in Izabal against the country’s largest active open-pit mine, owned by Solway’s subsidiary Compañía Guatemalteca de Níquel. Thirteen police officers accused me of having physically assaulted them, when all I was doing was documenting the moment when security forces repressed people with teargas. Since then I could not continue doing my job as a journalist, nor move around freely, until my lawyers managed to prove to the judge that I really am a journalist and not a criminal. In September the charges against me were dropped. It has been very exhausting: judicial harassment and criminal prosecution have wearing effects.

  What strategies have journalists adopted to be able to continue working?

  Strategies to break through censorship are renewed every day and are often focused on both physical and digital security, particularly concerning the security of documents and files. Local, national and international networking among journalists and alternative and independent media is also very important.

  Such networks have made possible works such as Green Blood, published in 2019, and Mining Secrets, published in 2022. Both were led by Forbidden Stories, an organisation based in France that supports the publication of the work of journalists facing threats, criminalisation and violence in their countries. Green Blood was the result of research conducted in three countries on three continents: Guatemala, India and Tanzania, and looks into the mining industry’s tactics to hinder journalistic work and criminalise those who oppose its practices. Mining Secrets arose from the leak of a huge amount of Solway’s internal files concerning the operation of its Fénix mining project in Izabal. A consortium of 20 media outlets from 15 countries around the world carried out an investigation, with information corroborated by 65 journalists, including the Prensa Comunitaria team I was part of.

  It is all about finding a way to continue doing the work you are doing. Like many others, I do journalism out of passion and conviction. I don’t expect a prize or international recognition. I know that what I am doing is going to help my community and society in general. I believe that shedding light on environmental damage and human rights violations is very important.

  What kind of support do journalists and community media in Guatemala currently receive, and what additional support would they need?

  We receive support mainly in the form of accompaniment: legal accompaniment, accompaniment from human rights organisations and accompaniment from communities and community authorities who support our work.

  This is very important, but much more is needed. A difficulty that criminalised or at-risk journalists experience is that of surviving economically and supporting their families, which is why economic support is important. The same goes for health support, because there are times when, due to all you are going through, your body no longer responds. Finally, it is key to provide opportunities for exchange with other journalist colleagues. It helps a lot to learn about the experiences of others.

  ---

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

  Follow@CarlosErnesto_C on Twitter.

• GUATEMALA: ‘Our democracy is at risk in the hands of political-criminal networks’

  CIVICUS speaks with Evelyn Recinos Contreras about Guatemala’s general elections – where a candidate promising reform has surprisingly made the second round of the presidential race – and the prospects for democratic change and opening up civic space.

  Evelyn is a former investigator for the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and former advisor to the Attorney General of Guatemala. She is currently living in exile because of her human rights activism.

  What is the state of civic space in Guatemala?

  Civic space in Guatemala is under serious threat. To understand this better, one must understand that, as a consequence of armed conflict, the social fabric is broken. There is hardly any grassroots citizen engagement to speak of. The sectors that for decades served as an engine of social change, such as teachers, trade unionists and high school and public university students, have been irreparably affected by the violence.

  Of these, probably the only grassroots sector that remains organised is Indigenous Mayan peoples, who fight for the defence of their territory and natural resources. In addition, in urban areas, civil society human rights and pro-democracy organisations have organised their work around strengthening democratic institutions, with much emphasis on the issue of justice.

  It is precisely these sectors that are once again being hit by authoritarianism and state violence. In the interior of the country, thousands of community leaders are being criminalised and entire communities are subject to arrest warrants and threatened with criminal prosecution. A similar situation is experienced in urban areas, where the justice system has been captured by political-criminal networks that use state platforms to fund their criminal endeavours and intimidate justice operators, human rights defenders and activists who fight for human rights and the strengthening of civic space and democracy.

  Networks of corruption and impunity affect the democratic space, as evidenced by the fact that people such as Thelma Cabrera of the People’s Liberation Movement were prevented from registering as candidates and participating in the elections.

  What are the causes of Guatemala’s democratic erosion?

  Democracy in Guatemala is being eroded by political-criminal networks that have taken over institutions and use them for their own benefit rather than the wellbeing of the public and the strengthening of democracy. But it has been a gradual and almost imperceptible process. Several key institutions have been weakened, such as the National Civil Police, which is in charge of two main tasks: crime prevention and the maintenance of citizen security, and collaboration in criminal investigations. For years, civil society worked with police commanders to build an institution at the service of democratic security, so that its work would serve to produce a civic space in which citizens could enjoy their fundamental rights and live a dignified life free of violence. But since 2017 we have seen the institution weakened, with commanders being dismissed and resources being misused.

  Similar problems can be found in the judiciary. High courts have not followed their normal process of renewal: they have not held elections for new magistrates. In addition, the last two elections they held were denounced and investigated for acts of corruption. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has also been weakened by a policy of criminal prosecution and criminalisation of justice operators, which has also meant the sidelining of investigation of crimes against life, violence against women and property crimes, which hit citizens hard. Rates of violence and insecurity in Guatemala are almost as high as in countries undergoing internal armed conflicts.

  Do you think that the anti-corruption struggle has failed in Guatemala?

  It is very difficult to provide an absolute answer to the question of the success or failure of the fight against corruption in Guatemala. I think the cases that were brought to trial were supported by evidence and due process was respected. In that sense they were successful. But this was only part of the fight against corruption, because the law provides a limited platform. The damage to society had already been done and resources had already been lost.

  The fight against corruption is only truly successful when there is a level of social involvement that leads to scrutiny of public officials and a sustained demand of accountability. Sadly, we are not there yet.

  For those who have been involved in the fight against corruption, the negative consequences have been obvious. Prosecutors, judges, human rights defenders, activists and community leaders are being persecuted on unfounded charges and pushed towards exile. This sends a strong message of fear to Guatemalan society. But I am convinced that the struggle does not end here. We deserve a country where we can all live in freedom and dignity. The Mayan people have been resisting for more than 500 years, so I think they are our best example to follow.

  Do you think a positive change could come out of this election?

  I believe there is hope. People have shown they are tired of the same murky forces that for years have embodied voracious economic interests that exploit peoples and territories and are characterised by discrimination, double standards and structural violence.

  The fact that one of the contenders in the runoff is the Semilla party, born out of the anti-corruption protests of 2015 and bringing together many people who have never participated in political parties before, is evidence of a desire for change. People rejected the usual political actors who represent archaic economic interests and embody authoritarian and corrupt forms of politics.

  For change to really materialise, we need the international community to turn its eyes to Guatemala. The risk to our democracy at the hands of political-criminal networks must not go unnoticed. We need the international community to draw attention to and speak out about the situation in our country, because the violation of the human rights of Guatemalans affects our shared humanity.

  ---

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

• GUATEMALA: ‘These elections are key because they give us a chance to take a different path’

  CIVICUS speaks with Jordán Rodas Andrade about Guatemala’s general elections – where a candidate promising reform has surprisingly made the second round of the presidential race – and the prospects for democratic change and opening up civic space.

  Jordán Rodas is a lawyer specialising in constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights, transparency and anti-corruption. In addition to being a university professor, in 2015 he was elected vice-president of the Guatemalan Bar Association and between 2017 and 2022 he was Guatemala’s Human Rights Ombudsman. In exercising this role he was repeatedly criminalised and threatened, as a result of which he had to go into exile.

  How have civic space conditions changed in Guatemala in recent years?

  In recent years there has been a very worrying deterioration of civic space in Guatemala, which has worsened under the current president, Alejandro Giammattei. His predecessor, Jimmy Morales, a comedian-turned-president, left very bad practices in place, but these reached extreme levels under Giammattei.

  In recent years, many human rights defenders, land rights defenders, journalists and justice defenders have had to leave our country, forced by a hostile climate of persecution and criminalisation. This closure of spaces and the absence of an independent press have produced fertile ground for the advance of an authoritarian regime. These elections are key because they give us Guatemalans a chance to take a different path for the good of our country.

  What drove you into exile?

  In my five years as prosecutor, I was criminalised with 18 pretrial proceedings, all of which were rejected. It is exhausting to have to constantly defend yourself against such a succession of spurious accusations. Then I had eight requests for removal from office by members of congress, in addition to a crippling financial suffocation.

  Above all, I have witnessed the weakening of justice. Many had to take the difficult decision to leave the country to save their lives, their freedom or their integrity. Among them are Juan Francisco Sandoval, former head of the Special Prosecutor’s Office against Impunity (FECI), Erika Aifán, an independent judge, Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez and many others who in one way or another touched the heartstrings of political and economic power.

  It is no coincidence that behind the persecution of justice operators and journalists is often the Foundation Against Terrorism, directed by business leader Ricardo Méndez Ruiz, who has been accused by the US government of acts of corruption and acts against democratic institutions. This organisation was a plaintiff in the criminal proceedings against Virginia Laparra, former FECI prosecutor in Quetzaltenango, who has been in prison for more than a year and who should never have been detained for denouncing cases of corruption of a judge. Whistleblowing is not a crime anywhere in the world.

  The same organisation criminally prosecuted José Rubén Zamora, the founder of newspaper elPeriódico, one of the government’s main critics who for years has denounced corruption. Zamora was recently sentenced to six years in prison for several alleged crimes, including money laundering. This sent a very serious message against press freedom. The independent press has had to self-censor and yet it continues to fight this battle.

  I was still in Guatemala when Zamora was captured, and so I decided to distance myself. I left in August but returned in December, by land, to participate in the assembly of the People’s Liberation Movement (MLP), which proclaimed Thelma Cabrera, an Indigenous Maya Mam woman, as its presidential candidate and myself as its vice-presidential candidate. Four years ago, the MLP came in fourth place, but in a context of social malaise in the face of corruption and thanks to its opening up to mestizo people – people of mixed European and Indigenous heritage – I thought it had a good chance of entering the second-round race.

  But my successor in the prosecutor’s office filed a spurious complaint against me, as a result of which our presidential ticket was blocked. I was systematically refused information about the content of the complaint. In other words, this was used to take us out of the race. Since then, I have continued the struggle from exile. This may not be what you want, but it is what you have to do.

  Under what conditions would you decide to return to Guatemala permanently?

  I was just talking about this last week following a work meeting with the Guatemalan state mediated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). I have been the beneficiary of a precautionary measure from the IACHR since 2017. These measures establish that the state has the obligation to ensure and guarantee a person’s life, integrity, security and liberty, and in my case the state of Guatemala has not complied with it. In order to return, I would need as the minimum that the state does not persecute or criminalise me.

  There are currently two accusations against me, one filed by the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office and another by the Comptroller General’s Office. I have no official knowledge of what the accusations are because I don’t have access to the documents; I have requested them through access to information requests. But it seems to me they are related to the fact that in my declaration of assets I said that I had handed over on 20 August, which is when my constitutionally established term ended, but I left the country on 18 August, leaving the deputy attorney general in charge, as the law dictates. In other words, there was no falsehood or crime. This case is under reserve, and I have asked the state, as a sign of goodwill, not to extend this reserve but to hand over a copy of the complaint so I can defend myself, and to guarantee my life and safety, and that of my family in Guatemala.

  Has the fight against corruption in Guatemala failed?

  The fight against corruption has not failed, but it has stalled as a result of a well-thought-out strategy of a corrupt alliance of political officials and private sector actors.

  However, today more than ever I hope that we will learn the painful but positive lessons from the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), which I believe has more lights than shadows. I hope that from that learning we can, sooner rather than later, take up the fight against corruption again.

  International support will continue to be indispensable because our justice system is very porous, permeated by organised crime and lacking institutionality. Three of the nine magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice and several other judges and judicial officials are on the US State Department’s Engel List of people who have committed acts of corruption or have participated in actions to undermine democracy in their countries. Members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal have been accused of falsifying their doctoral degrees to get elected and the Human Rights Ombudsman was Giammattei’s human rights officer in the prison system at the time he launched ‘Operation Peacock’, a police operation that resulted in a massacre and eventually cost Giammattei 10 months in prison, but also launched its presidential bid. Hence the trust that exists between these two officials.

  But it is clear that people are tired of all this and they showed it at the ballot box on 25 June, when they said no to a return to the past and yes to a proposal that sends a message of hope for the fight against corruption. This was clearly put by the candidate who represents this hope, Bernardo Arévalo, who made it to the second round against all odds.

  Do you consider these elections to have been free and competitive?

  The presidential election was not free and competitive, because a fair election requires not only that there be no fraud on voting day, but also that a series of elements are present throughout the process, from the moment the elections are called. The election was called on 20 January, and on 27 January the state closed the door on us and prevented our participation. Not only did this violate our right to stand for election, but it also restricted citizens’ right to have a full range of options.

  In reaction to this exclusion, Thelma Cabrera called for a null vote, and numbers don’t lie. The null vote actually won, with 17 per cent, a higher share than that received by the candidate who came first, Sandra Torres, who got around 15 per cent. People are clearly fed up.

  The unfairness of the competition also manifested itself in the official party’s handling of public resources and the government’s extremely close relationship with some Supreme Electoral Tribunal magistrates.

  But the fact that Bernardo Arévalo managed to enter the second round is, alongside the mass of null votes, blank votes and abstentions, a sign of enormous rejection of the system. I have high expectations for the second round, in which I hope that the Guatemalan people will participate massively and take advantage of this opportunity to choose a better future.

  What would Guatemala’s new government need to do to put the country back on the road to democracy?

  Above all, the anti-corruption message must be accompanied by real action. Revenge against justice operators must stop, the rule of law must be restored and the freedom of the independent press must be guaranteed.

  The new president should form a cabinet inclusive of progressive sectors. He should convene political parties, social forces and Indigenous peoples’ movements to jointly make a proposal that ensures public policies benefit those most in need.

  The new government should totally dissociate itself from the malpractices of the past and be very careful about power’s temptations. Its responsibility to those who have placed their trust in it must prevail. There will be temptations along the way, so it is essential that it place its bets on people who are ethical, capable and consistent with the values projected in the electoral campaign, as people voted for them because they recognised them first and foremost as an honest party. Bernardo is surely the most interested in honouring the legacy of his father, former president Juan José Arévalo. His government could become a third government of the revolution, taking up and improving on the great achievements of that democratic springtime that took place between 1944 and 1955.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Jordán Rodas through his Facebook or Instagram pages, and follow him on TikTok and Twitter.

• HONDURAS: ‘Human rights should be more than just talk. They should be reflected in practice’

  CIVICUS speaks with Christopher Castillo, General Coordinator of Alternative for Community and Environmental Vindication of Honduras (Alternativa de Reivindicación Comunitaria y Ambientalista de Honduras, ARCAH), about progress made and pending issues after two years of Xiomara Castro’s presidency.

  ARCAH is a community social movement that defends territories and common goods against projects that threatens peace and the wellbeing of communities, from an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-patriarchal, anti-colonialist and anti-classist perspective.

  To what extent has Xiomara Castro’s government, as it nears its second anniversary, lived up to expectations?

  The greatest expectation of Hondurans was to put an end to an authoritarian government. The key focus of Castro’s campaign was therefore to dismantle the authoritarian state and a series of associated issues, particularly corruption, influence peddling and the capture of institutions by drug traffickers and organised crime. That goal has been partly achieved: we seem to no longer live under arbitrary power, although we continue to coexist with deep-rooted corruption and high levels of crime, insecurity and violence.

  Another issue of great concern to grassroots activists are what are called ZEDEs – employment and economic development zones. In April 2022, when reporting on her first 100 days in office, President Castro proudly declared that national sovereignty was being restored, emphasising that her government had repealed the law that established these areas and provided special conditions to attract investment. However, her repeal decree had not yet been ratified by Congress. The removal of conditions for the continuation of extractive processes was still pending, and to a large extent this has remained unchanged.

  The new government also promised to halt water privatisation. However, so far there are 81 Honduran municipalities where water has been privatised, and the government has continued to strengthen service providers that take the function away from public companies, particularly in Comayagüela and Tegucigalpa, the two cities that make up the Central District.

  In sum, citizens’ expectations have been met in terms of overcoming the more authoritarian and repressive features of the state, but not regarding extractivist and privatisation policies, which have not yet seen significant changes.

  Has the situation of human rights defenders improved?

  To the extent that their struggles are linked to resistance against extractivism and privatisation, the situation of human rights defenders has not improved. We have experienced reprisals for our work, which have included death threats, kidnapping attempts and criminalisation processes. In 2023, ARCAH counted 125 attacks against the organisation and its members. In August, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted precautionary measures in favour of 11 ARCAH members, but more than five months have passed and the government has yet to implement anything in response to these precautionary measures.

  Many activists seeking assistance from state protection mechanisms are being ignored or have their petitions systematically obstructed, even when they provide evidence that they are experiencing attacks and their lives are in danger.

  According to the latest report by the Human Rights Secretariat, 54 cases are currently being processed, more than 100 are in the queue and only eight have measures in place. The excuse given to justify this poor performance is its limited budget, which currently stands at 32 million lempiras (approx. US$1.3 million). There are government officials who have larger budgets for foreign travel and business. Human rights should be more than just talk. They should be reflected in practice.

  What’s the current state of public opinion?

  A survey published by the Jesuit Reflection, Research and Communication Team (ERIC-SJ) in early 2023 showed that after one year in office Castro’s popularity had dropped by 20 percentage points. It also showed that for the majority of Hondurans the most urgent issues to tackle were the economic crisis and unemployment. Honduras is the second-poorest country in Latin America, despite a six per cent growth rate, one of the region’s highest.

  According to the ERIC-SJ survey, the third most important problem, close behind economic issues, was crime and insecurity. A very large majority also perceived that murders had increased. Regarding corruption and justice delivery, however, the majority thought the situation had remained unchanged, although the new International Mission against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras received high levels of support.

  What should Castro’s priorities be for the second half of her term?

  The main public policy priorities in Honduras continue to be education, health and the environment – in addition to the situation of excluded groups, including Indigenous peoples, women, LGBTQI+ people and peasants. Much of this exclusion is linked to the problem of extractivism, which accounts for high levels of violence against environmental activists, and almost total impunity for these attacks.

  The situation of education and its link to employment is dramatic. Many people no longer want to send their children to school, because even if they graduate they still can’t get a job. It’s more profitable to bring them into the informal market to work as vendors. This has resulted in increasing numbers of school dropouts.

  Change in this area must focus not only on increasing school enrolment and retention but also on providing quality education. Public education must be made attractive again to the middle and upper-middle classes to reverse the privatisation and segmentation of education.

  The issue of health goes beyond hospital services to include the quality of food and consumption habits. Honduras has very high levels of malnutrition not just because of limited access to food but also because the quality of food has decreased. This is partly due to the fact that the best-quality products, such as bananas, are destined for export, and only the worst-quality products are left for domestic consumption.

  Finally, the issue of extractivism should be prioritised. Announcements made about this have not yet been fulfilled. For instance, the Ministry of the Environment has issued statements on the prohibition of open-pit mining but no decree has been issued to formally prohibit this practice and the 20 existing concessions continue to operate.

  There are 2,100 extractive projects underway in Honduras, of which 300 are hydroelectric dams and 900 are mining projects. Overall, 33 per cent of national territory has been handed over in concessions to transnational corporations that are developing extractive projects. ZEDEs, meanwhile, occupy 67 per cent of national territory, including all of the coast.

  In 2023, 12 human rights defenders were killed. Last year Honduras was the country with the most murders of environmental activists per capita in the world, and the fourth in absolute terms. This problem has not abated with the change of government. It should be a priority to tackle this continuing violence and impunity.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with ARCAH through itsFacebook account and follow@Arcah_hn on Twitter.

• HONG KONG: ‘Any activism that the government dislikes can be deemed a national security violation’

  CIVICUS speaks about the persecution faced by Hong Kong activists in exile with Anouk Wear, research and policy adviser at Hong Kong Watch.

  Founded in 2017, Hong Kong Watch is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in the UK thatproduces research and monitors threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy, basic freedoms and the rule of law. Itworks at the intersection between politics, academia and the media to help shape the international debate about Hong Kong.

  What challenges do Hong Kong activists in exile face?

  Hong Kong activists in exile face the challenge of continuing our activism without being in the place where we want and need to be to make a direct impact. We put continuous effort into community-building, preserving our culture and staying relevant to the people and situation in Hong Kong today. 

  When we do this, we face threats from the Chinese government that have drastically escalated since the National Security Law (NSL) was imposed in 2020.

  This draconian law was enacted in response to the mass protests triggered by the proposed Extradition Bill between Hong Kong and mainland China in 2019.

  The NSL broadly defines and criminalises secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. In 2022, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee concluded that the NSL is ‘vague and ambiguous’.

  In practical terms, any activism the Hong Kong government dislikes, including meeting a foreign politician, organising an event and publishing an article, can be deemed a violation of the NSL, according to the government’s interpretation. This means we don’t know what is legal and what is not, and many people end up self-censoring to protect themselves.

  On 3 July 2023, the government issued new arrest warrants for eight activists in exile, including three in the UK – Nathan Law, Finn Lau and Mung Siu-tat – and offered bounties of around £100,000 (approx. US$130,000) each for anyone providing information leading to their arrest. All of them are accused of breaching the NSL. Despite having no legal basis for applying the NSL in the UK, the Hong Kong government continues to threaten and intimidate activists abroad.

  To what extent are civil society and independent media in exile able to continue doing their work?

  Since the imposition of the NSL, over 60 CSOs, including political parties, trade unions and media groups, have disbanded. Many have relocated abroad, including over 50 CSOs that signed a joint statement urging government action following the Hong Kong National Security arrest warrants and bounties this month. 

  There is a strong network of Hong Kong activists in exile, and activists in exile are still able to do their work. However, we have great difficulty collaborating with activists still in Hong Kong because of the risks they face. For example, last week, five people in Hong Kong were arrested for alleged links to activists in exile who are on the wanted list. Collaborations must now be even more careful and discreet than they already were.

  What kind of support do Hong Kong activists and journalists in exile receive, and what further international support do you need?

  In November 2022, Hong Kong journalists who relocated to the UK collaborated with the National Union of Journalists of the UK and Ireland to launch the Association of Overseas Hong Kong Media Professionals. They pledged to focus on freedom of the press in Hong Kong and provide mutual assistance for professionals who have relocated overseas.

  There is also extensive support among Hong Kong activists and CSOs in exile, from civil society of host countries and from the international community, as can be seen in the joint response to the arrest warrants and bounties issued on 3 July.

  However, more coordinated action is needed to respond to Beijing’s threats, particularly from the governments of host countries. There needs to be more assurance and action to reiterate that Beijing and Hong Kong do not have jurisdiction abroad and there will be serious consequences to their threats. 

  Hong Kong activists in exile are now making submissions to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, which will review China’s human rights record since 2018.

  We urge UN member states, CSOs and journalists to use this opportunity to highlight the drastic changes that have taken place in Hong Kong and to continue supporting our fight for democracy, rights and freedom.

  ---

  Civic space in Hong Kong is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Hong Kong Watch through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@hk_watch and@anoukwear onTwitter.

• HORN OF AFRICA: ‘De-escalation must be the primary objective’

  CIVICUS speaks with Mengistu Assefa, Program Manager at the Center for the Advancement of Rights and Democracy (CARD), about a port deal between Ethiopia and Somaliland and the possibility of it escalating into an armed conflict with Somalia.

  CARD is an Ethiopian civil society organisation that advocates for democracy and human rights through citizen empowerment.

  What’s the relevance of the recent port deal between Ethiopia and Somaliland?

  Following Eritrea’s independence in 1993, Ethiopia became a landlocked nation, placed in a challenging position for international trade. Since then, Djibouti has emerged as its primary access point to the sea, handling over 95 per cent of its trade volume. This dependence comes at a cost, with Ethiopia paying more than US$1 billion annually in fees to Djibouti’s ports and infrastructure. With its estimated population of 126 million, the second largest in Africa, Ethiopia views sea access as critical for its economic, political and demographic future.

  To achieve this, on 1 January 2024 the Ethiopian federal government signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on commercial port access with Somaliland, a self-proclaimed autonomous territory that is internationally recognised as part of Somalia.

  While this MoU is not a legally binding agreement, it carries significant implications for the region because it walks a tightrope between cooperation and recognition. For Somaliland, the MoU represents a potential step towards international recognition of its de facto autonomy. Although the agreement’s full details remain undisclosed, it also reportedly grants Ethiopia access to Somaliland’s Red Sea coast, potentially including a military base. Ethiopian authorities have not been explicit about Somaliland’s recognition, saying the MoU allows for an ‘in-depth assessment’ of Somaliland’s quest for recognition.

  Somalia vehemently rejects the MoU, viewing it as a violation of its territorial integrity and political sovereignty. It is actively mobilising diplomatic pressure against the deal. Somali president Hassan Sheik Mohamed has visited Egypt and Eritrea, Ethiopia’s long-standing competitors, seeking support. Additionally, the Arab League, of which Somalia is a member, has denounced the MoU. Egypt’s leader, already locked in negotiations with Ethiopia over a Nile dam project, has assured Somalia of potential support if requested, further escalating regional tensions.

  What’s the political status of Somaliland?

  Somaliland, with an estimated population of five million, broke away from Somalia and declared its independence in 1991 after 30 years of civil war. It fought for its independence based on the argument that it had a distinct historical heritage. Somaliland was a UK protectorate, while Somalia was under Italian control. For Somalilanders, this is enough argument to prove they are different territories. Moreover, in June 1960 Somaliland was briefly recognised as an independent state by around 35 nations for a span of five days, before it relinquished its sovereignty to reunite with the Somali Republic.

  Somaliland declared its independence more than three decades ago but Somalia has never recognised it. Neither has any international organisation. Even so, Somaliland has managed to become a stable, functional state. It established its own army and democratic institutions and has held six elections with peaceful transitions of power.

  In late 2022 and early 2023, a local armed movement, the Dhulbahante militias, rose against Somaliland’s government, declaring its intention to rejoin Somalia. This uprising posed significant political and security challenges to the Somaliland government, partly contributing to the postponement of 2023 elections. It cast a shadow of instability over Somaliland’s bid for international recognition, which hinges on its ability to demonstrate long-term stability and democratic institutions.

  Could the port deal lead to international recognition of Somaliland’s independence?

  Somaliland has made clear that a binding legal agreement could only be signed once it is officially recognised as an independent nation state. But the Ethiopian side of the story is quite different. Ethiopia hasn’t ruled out the possibility of that happening but hasn’t explicitly said it would take a stance on the recognition of Somaliland. The signing of a binding legal international agreement with Somaliland would however result in Ethiopia’s de facto recognition of its independence.

  Looking at the bigger picture, this deal could affect the regional security architecture, particularly when it comes to fighting Al-Shabaab, an Islamist terrorist group based in Somalia and allied with Al-Qaeda. Al-Shabaab is perceived as a global security threat and has explicitly targeted Ethiopia. Consequently, Ethiopia is engaged in fighting Al-Shabaab in Somalia alongside the Somali army. If Ethiopia recognises Somaliland, Somalia will likely force Ethiopia to pull out its troops. However, as Somalia cannot take charge of its security on its own, Ethiopia could use it as leverage to force Somalia to back down from a strong reaction.

  Ethiopia’s potential recognition of Somaliland carries significant implications. Located in a strategically crucial area along the Gulf of Eden, where Houthis and pirates constantly attack international ships, Somaliland’s 850-kilometre coastline attracts interest from various countries seeking a potential military base. Ethiopia’s explicit recognition of Somaliland could trigger a domino effect, with other countries following suit, although recognition would likely face significant hurdles at the African Union (AU).

  The AU adheres to the principle of respecting colonial borders and has expressed concerns about setting a precedent for secessionist movements in other African states, including Morocco and Nigeria. Ethiopia will likely weigh this carefully before explicitly recognising Somaliland’s independence. However, the rapidly shifting landscape of international interests suggests that it’s not an impossibility. This possibility is further amplified by the growing involvement of great and emerging powers in the Red Sea region, driven by economic and security interests.

  Could tensions escalate into a conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia?

  Ethiopia and Somalia have had difficult relations in the past. In 1964, they clashed in a three-month border conflict. This initial skirmish foreshadowed a larger and bloodier conflict that erupted between 1977 and 1978. During this period, Somalia invaded Ethiopia with the intent of annexing the Ogaden region, inhabited by ethnic Somalis. The conflict quickly became a proxy war for the contenders of the Cold War, with the western bloc supporting Somalia and the Soviet Union backing Ethiopia. Ultimately, Ethiopia repelled the Somali army.

  In 2006, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), a group aiming to unite all Somalis across Ethiopia, Somalia and Somaliland under Islamic rule, gained control of Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital. This development raised concerns in Ethiopia, which perceived it as a threat to its national security and regional stability. Supported by the USA in the context of the ‘war on terror’, Ethiopia militarily intervened in Somalia and removed the ICU from power.

  Several years later, Ethiopia and Somalia signed a bilateral agreement aimed at stabilising the region. This agreement facilitated the deployment of Ethiopian security forces to assist the Somali National Army in its fight against Al-Shabaab and support the ongoing Somali transition process. It’s important to note that these Ethiopian troops are currently integrated into the AU Transition Mission in Somalia, a peacekeeping mission.

  Since October 2023, Ethiopia has declared its intention to gain access to the sea by peaceful means. In exchange for access Ethiopia has offered Djibouti, Eritrea and Somalia land-swaps and stakes in a successful state-owned business such as Ethiopian Airlines, Africa’s biggest and most successful airline, and even in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. But none of these countries accepted Ethiopia’s offer, leaving Somaliland as a seemingly more amenable option.

  Somalia viewed Ethiopia’s signing of the port deal with Somaliland as betrayal. It reacted strongly and aggressively because it considers it an encroachment on its territory and an act against its sovereignty.

  Ethiopia’s recognition of Somaliland’s independence could open a Pandora’s box. In fear that it could lead to regional and global recognition, Somalia said that if Ethiopia moved forward in implementing the agreement, consequences would follow.

  This all brings us to the final and crucial point: where will this take the region? While the possibility of conflict cannot be entirely dismissed, it’s important to consider various factors and perspectives to assess its likelihood.

  First, military capabilities and intentions play a role. While Somalia’s military power is not comparable to Ethiopia’s, the potential for escalation and regional instability cannot be ignored. Additionally, Ethiopia’s stated commitment to peaceful resolutions needs to be weighed against its historical engagements and potential strategic calculations.

  Second, the international community’s role matters. The Horn of Africa and the Red Sea region are already grappling with complex conflicts and any further instability would have significant repercussions. International pressure and diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions and promote dialogue will be crucial in preventing conflict.

  Further, Somalia’s response to the MoU adds another layer of complexity. Its seeking of support from Ethiopia’s historical competitors, such as Egypt and Eritrea, as well as regional entities such as the Arab League, could potentially lead to increased diplomatic pressure against Ethiopia. This, in turn, could further strain relations between the two countries for the foreseeable future.

  Finally, the MoU is likely to ignite discussions about the status of Somaliland, both within the AU and at the United Nations Security Council.

  What should the international community do to address this potential crisis?

  The international community plays a crucial role in navigating the complex situation surrounding Ethiopia’s pursuit of sea access and its MoU with Somaliland. It is essential to engage with all stakeholders, particularly the Somali government and Somaliland’s authorities. It should be a top priority to facilitate negotiations to find a lasting solution that ensures both peaceful coexistence and normalised relations, as people in the Horn of Africa are ultimately bearing the brunt of this disagreement.

  Regardless of the outcome, be it Somaliland’s reunification with Somalia or its international recognition as a separate state, the two countries must establish a mutually agreeable arrangement for peaceful coexistence. The international community can play the role of facilitating a genuine conversation between the two. This is of course easier said than done, given the historical complexities of their relationship and the vested interests of various states and organisations, including western nations and other international players, who prioritise their security and economic interests in the region.

  International involvement should also aim to support Ethiopia and Somalia in reaching a mutually agreeable solution. This requires careful diplomacy to avoid exacerbating existing tensions or creating new problems. It’s also essential to urge those with vested interests in the region to avoid exploiting this situation for their agendas. De-escalation must be the primary objective.

  ---

  Civic space in bothEthiopia andSomalia is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with CARD through itswebsite or itsFacebook orInstagram pages, and follow@CARDEthiopia and@mengistu_dadi on Twitter.

• HUNGARY: ‘The government is masking anti-LGBTQI+ legislation under the narrative of children protection’

  CIVICUS speaks about the Hungarian government’santi-LGBTQI+ campaign with Imre Zsoldos of the Hungarian LGBT Alliance.

  Founded in 2009, theHungarian LGBT Alliance is an umbrella civil society organisation (CSO) that brings together seven LGBTQI+ groups with the aim of promoting communication, cooperation and joint action to confront social rejection, prejudice and discrimination against sexual minorities in Hungary.

  What are the latest developments in the government-led anti-LGBTQI+ campaign?

  To begin with, Hungarian legislation explicitly forbids same-sex registered partners from adopting children. There is another law prohibiting unmarried single people from adopting children unless they have a special permit issued by the Minister for Families, which has been made almost impossible to get to prevent same-sex parents adopting separately.

  On top of this, in April 2023 the Hungarian parliament passed a bill enabling people to anonymously report on same-sex couples raising children, or those who contest the ‘constitutionally recognised role of marriage and the family’ or children’s rights ‘to an identity appropriate to their sex at birth’. This law specifically targeted rainbow families and transgender young people. No specific evidence or details would be needed to report same-sex families and other ‘offenders’ to the authorities. The law also mandated the establishment of a reporting platform.

  President Katalin Novak did not sign the bill into law, arguing it weakened the protection of fundamental values, and sent it back to parliament for reconsideration. My assumption is that parliament will pass it again with some changes.

  Previously in March, the government filed a counter claim to the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) to defend an education law passed in 2021, which was in fact just another anti-‘gay propaganda’ law. Initially, the law was meant to impose harsher punishment for sexual offences against minors, but legislators from the ruling Fidesz party introduced several changes so that the law ended up criminalising the portrayal or ‘promotion’ of homosexuality or sex reassignment to minors and restricting sexual education in schools. It was condemned by 17 EU member states.

  The 2021 Child Protection Act enshrines children’s right to ‘education in accordance with the values based on Hungary's constitutional identity and Christian culture’. The government is masking anti-LGBTQI+ legislation under the narrative of child protection, portraying LGBTQI+ people as paedophiles and claiming it is trying to ‘save the children’ from us.

  The same narrative is also used to criticise the EU: the government claims the EU suspended over €6 billion (approx. US$6.5 billion) in funds for 2021-2027 because it promotes paedophilia, while in fact the funds were cut off due to a decline in the rule of law and judicial independence and concerns about corruption.

  How is the government’s anti-LGBTQI+ campaign affecting people?

  This hostile rhetoric resembles the way Jewish people and other minorities were targeted in the run-up to the Second World War. We are losing the feeling of security in our own society. We feel outlawed and can’t understand how this can be happening in Europe nowadays. Many LGBTQI+ people are starting to think about whether we should leave the country before it’s too late.

  Public attitudes to the government’s anti-LGBTQI+ campaign are shifting both ways, since everyone is reacting to the portrayal of LGBTQI+ people as a public enemy. On one side of the divide, people are getting outraged by the government’s propaganda and hence showing more support and understanding. On the other side, people are beginning to feel emboldened and legitimised to express discriminatory thoughts and act in discriminatory ways.

   

  What are the conditions for LGBTQI+ organisations in Hungary?

  The majority of Hungarian LGBTQI+ organisations are run by volunteers because they very rarely have resources to pay employees, especially in fixed positions. Our funding is strictly tied to projects to be implemented.

  As all the major media platforms are in the hands of the government, our opportunities to shift public opinion are really limited. We can only use CSOs’ social media and websites for advocacy. For example, one of the members of the Hungarian LGBT Alliance is the Rainbow Families Foundation. It ran a large campaign, ‘Family is Family’, that reached an extensive audience thanks to a TV station broadcasting the campaign in prime time. But then the media authority fined the TV station, saying it’s only allowed to broadcast this kind of advertisement at night because its depiction of homosexuality sensitively affects children under 16, causing misunderstanding, tension and uncertainty among them. A court eventually nullified the media authority’s decision, but this kind of decision is why there is almost no newspaper or TV station where we could have the space to effectively resist the government’s anti-LGBTQI+ campaign.

  Activists are targeted by the authorities in diverse ways, such as smear campaigns fuelled by the dissemination of fake information about them, as well as audits and controls on their private or family businesses or pressure in their workplaces or on family members who hold any state position. This creates a constant stress situation, since we never know when, where or how we will be targeted.

  But despite the hardship, we are doing our best to create safe places, build a community and provide legal and other forms of help to LGBTQI+ people.

  What further support does Hungarian civil society need?

  Alongside financial support, it would be extremely helpful – not only for LGBTQI+ people but also for other minorities, the political opposition and civil society as a whole – to have a widely accessible communication platform to reach older people beyond the capital, Budapest. While we can easily reach out to young people through social media, we are unable to reach those who get their information from television, newspapers and their churches, all of which are predominantly controlled by the government.

  ---

  Civic space in Hungary is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the Hungarian LGBT Alliance through itswebsite or itsFacebook page.

• ICJ: ‘There should be no place for double standards’

  CIVICUS speaks about the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of the case brought by South Africa against Israel with Thomas Van Gool, Project Lead Israel-Palestine at PAX.

  PAX, the largest peace organisation in the Netherlands, works to protect civilians against acts of war, end armed violence and build inclusive peace. It works in conflict areas worldwide, together with local partners and people who, like PAX, believe that everyone has a right to a dignified life in a peaceful society.

  What’s the ICJ and how does it work?

  The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN) and is based in The Hague, the Netherlands. It was established under the UN Charter in 1945 to settle legal disputes between states and provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council and other UN organs and specialised agencies.

  The ICJ has two types of jurisdictions: contentious and advisory. In contentious cases, states must consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, either through a special agreement or by accepting the court’s compulsory jurisdiction in advance. Advisory opinions are provided on legal questions referred to the court by the UN General Assembly, Security Council, or other authorised bodies.

  In contentious cases, once the court has jurisdiction, it proceeds to hear the case. The parties involved submit their arguments and evidence, and the court makes a judgment based on international law.

  Why did South Africa bring a case against Israel at the ICJ? What are its allegations?

  The case brought by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ came as a surprise to many but if you look at it more closely, it is not that strange. There is a long-term bond between South Africa and Palestinians. Nelson Mandela once famously said, ‘We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians’. This bond was formed more than half a century ago, when the African National Congress was battling apartheid and saw strong parallels between the Palestinians’ struggle and its own. Israel’s support for apartheid in South Africa only strengthened these bonds. South Africa’s decision to take Israel to the ICJ may have been unforeseen by many, including Israel, but is not as random as it has been portrayed.

  According to South Africa, Israel’s actions in Gaza make it responsible for violations of the Genocide Convention. South Africa alleges that Israel’s killing of large numbers of Palestinians in Gaza, including children, its destruction of homes, blocking of the entry of food, water and medical supplies, forced displacement and expulsion, and destruction of health services can be considered genocidal, and has asked the ICJ to rule on this matter.

  The response of Israel has been that there is no genocide, that it is defending itself and that the court should have no say in the matter. While a big part of the international community supported the case, Israel’s close allies, including Germany and the USA, stood by it.

  What could the ICJ do in response to the conflict in Gaza?

  While the court typically takes several years to reach final decisions, it has the authority to issue provisional measures in the interim. This is what it has done in the case initiated by South Africa against Israel.

  As of now, the Court has not definitively ruled on the occurrence of genocide, nor has it decided if it has jurisdiction to hear the case. However, in an initial assessment, it determined that jurisdiction appears to be plausible, establishing a connection between the measures requested by South Africa and the case. This decision hinged on considerations of plausibility, urgency and the potential impact of not implementing these measures.

  There are different potential outcomes of the case and a ruling that genocide has been committed is plausible given the evidence already presented by South Africa. While several criteria must be met, in genocide cases intent is often the most crucial to establish. To prove intent, South Africa is pointing, among other things, to statements made by high-ranking Israeli government officials.

  What can we expect next?

  Following the ICJ’s decision, Israel is obligated, in accordance with the Genocide Convention and its responsibilities toward Palestinians in Gaza, to ‘take all measures within its power’ to prevent acts prohibited by the Convention, particularly killings, but this also includes causing serious physical or mental harm, deliberately imposing conditions of life leading to the physical destruction of the population and imposing measures intended to prevent births.

  Israel is expressly required to ensure its military forces refrain from committing any of these acts, prevent and punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide, facilitate immediate and effective humanitarian relief to Gaza, take measures to prevent the destruction of evidence related to allegations of acts contrary to the Genocide Convention and submit a comprehensive report to the Court within one month detailing the steps taken to comply with its order.

  Unfortunately, so far there is little indication that Israel is complying with any of these obligations. A ceasefire would be the most logical step to comply, but bombings and the ground offensive are still occurring.

  How effective are institutions such as the ICJ in dealing with gross human rights abuses? Is there a need for reform?

  While its decisions are binding on the parties involved, the ICJ lacks its own enforcement mechanism. Compliance with ICJ rulings depends on the willingness of the states involved to adhere to the judgment. The UN Security Council can play a role in enforcement, but this is subject to its own political dynamics.

  In my opinion the ICJ is enormously important. It is the highest court we have, and its rulings should be adhered to. There is also an essential role for the international community to play in protecting and supporting the ICJ, complying with its rulings and fostering their enforcement. That is often lacking. The Netherlands, as host country of the ICJ, should contribute towards ensuring the effectiveness of ICJ rulings. There should be no place for double standards.

  ---

  Get in touch with PAX through its website or Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @PAXforpeace and @ThomasvgPAX 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.

• INDIA: ‘Media and journalists are under tremendous pressure from the government’

  CIVICUS speaks withGeetartha Pathak, president of the Indian Journalists Union (IJU), about the increasing violation of press freedoms in India.

  Founded in 1990, the IJU is a leading federation of journalists and associations working to foster free, frank and fearless journalism in India,protect journalists’ rights and personal safety and uphold the public’s right to information.

  What are the current conditions for Indian media and journalists?

  People who criticise the government, the leaders of the ruling party or their impractical policies are targeted by the ruling class. Indian media and journalists are under tremendous pressure from the government. They face false accusations of sedition, abetting terrorism, corruption and fostering animosity between religious groups in retaliation for their critical coverage of government policies and work. Journalists from media outlets such as Altnews, Newsclick, Scroll and The Wire are particularly vulnerable to these attacks.

  Why are the authorities targeting critical media and journalists, and what tactics are they using against them?

  Journalists, particularly those from independent media outlets, have criticised the government for adopting communal approaches and reminded the authorities of their constitutional obligation to follow secular policies. Independent media have extensively covered the government’s failures in handling the COVID-19 pandemic, criticised the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act for being discriminatory and opposed recent amendments to the 2021 IT Rules that target online content considered ‘fake’ as a tool to criminalise dissent.

  Journalists who do not compromise with the government and expose corruption in high places, hobnobbing by the ruling classes with a handful of corporate honchos and illegal business deals face all sorts of threats, including death threats.

  The regime’s typical approach to pressure journalists involves threats, online trolling, criminalisation based on the 1978 Public Safety Act that allows arrests grounded on the alleged need to avert potential harm to ‘state security or public order’, summons of journalists by police and security forces, physical attacks and sometimes attempted murder. The situation is worsening by the day, with an increasing number of journalists being arrested, subjected to raids by police and other law enforcement agencies and facing lawsuits.

  There is rampant seizure of personal laptops, phones and other tools from journalists without judicial authorisation and in violation of Supreme Court’s verdicts. Another tactic being used to put pressure on independent journalists is legal harassment through the filing of multiple court cases.

  How have journalists and civil society organised in response?

  Journalists are responding with mixed reactions. Despite the pressure, some continue their critical coverage, while others have toned down their voices and resorted to self-censorship. Some have surrendered under pressure and quit doing their work.

  But this repression has also impacted on the popularity of the ruling party. Academics, social workers, activists and democratic-minded people have broadly criticised the government for curtailing media freedoms. Journalists’ unions and professional bodies have condemned attacks on journalists and the curtailment of press freedoms. They campaign on digital platforms and social media against restrictions on media freedoms, arrests of and attacks on journalists and media workers, internet trolling and legal harassment. They have staged protests in various parts of India.

  What international support are Indian media and journalists receiving?

  IJU is an affiliate of the International Federation of Journalists and consistently collaborates with journalists’ organisations from different countries. Many international journalists and human rights groups have expressed their solidarity with us, inspiring Indian journalists to further confront the challenges. The issue of the government squeezing the media is also raised in different forums of the United Nations. The Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and other international civil society organisations have also monitored and denounced declining media freedoms in India.

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

  Get in touch with the IJU through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@iju_india onTwitter.

• INDIA: ‘The once-cosmopolitan state of Manipur is now divided into two rival communities’

  

  CIVICUS speaks about ethnic violence and a humanitarian crisis in the Indian state of Manipur withMangneo Lhungdim and Sulekha Thapa, Executive Director and Deputy Director of Oasis India.

  Founded in 1994, Oasis India is a civil society organisation (CSO) working to prevent human trafficking and other forms of violence against women and children and support people so they can flourish in their community. Oasis India has also been involved inemergency relief work in Manipur.

   

  What triggered ethnic violence in Manipur state?

  Manipur and a few other northeastern states of India endured severe ethnic violence until the mid-1990s and into the early 2000s. But over the past two decades rights-based reconciliation and development efforts gained momentum, including infrastructure development initiatives that ultimately benefited local communities.

  In this new context, the conflict between the majority Meitei people living in the Imphal Valley and the Kuki-Zo tribal community from the surrounding hills, now into its eighth month, could definitely have been prevented. As retired military and police officers have claimed, public order could and should have been restored within the first month of the conflict in May 2023. The state administration, supported by central security forces, had the capacity to contain the violence and prevent further displacement and killings.

  The conflict is believed to be a collateral outcome of valley Meitei people demanding inclusion on the Scheduled Tribes list under the Constitution of India, which tribal communities interpreted as an attempt to grab their land. On 3 May 2023, the tribals of Manipur, under the aegis of All Tribal Students Union Manipur, carried out a protest march in most hill districts, including Churachandpur. Violent incidents during the Churachandpur march spiralled and spread statewide, turning into senseless killings, arson and displacement.

  It’s difficult to identify particular reasons behind this outbreak of violence since the media coverage was initially limited and subsequent reports by independent journalists gave mixed messages and focused primarily on day-to-day events. Nevertheless, the government must fully acknowledge its responsibility and admit that it bears significant blame for such escalation of a latent ethnic conflict.

  The once-cosmopolitan state of Manipur is now divided into two rival communities and there’s no prospect of the conflict ending any time soon, as there are no substantial peacebuilding efforts by the state or national government. The only hope of restoring normality in life and livelihoods in Manipur comes from collaborative efforts undertaken by local CSOs and leaders.

  What’s the current situation on the ground?

  The situation is relatively more stable now than during the initial three to four months of the conflict, but it still remains challenging. The deployment of over 50,000 central security personnel has led to increased militarisation.

  The violence affects every aspect of the lives of people of all ages.

  Agriculture is the primary occupation in the region, but a majority of farmers missed the sowing and harvest seasons due to curfew regulations and lack of resources. This has deprived them of earnings to meet the basic needs of their families and resulted in shortages of staples.

  Over 60,000 people have been forcibly displaced and currently stay in camps where CSOs are the primary providers of humanitarian aid. Road communications from Manipur’s capital city, Imphal, to affected districts are severed, which complicates the delivery of relief and affects local businesses.

  The strict curfew forced schools to close, causing children to miss several months of education and delaying the start of the new academic year. Healthcare services have also been disrupted. Even burying the dead was impossible for a long period, though some improvement has been noted over the past few days, when the remains of 64 people were taken back to their homelands.

  The emotional impact on the residents of Manipur is profound. People have lived in fear and anxiety for a long time, and many have lost family members or their homes.

  How has Indian civil society, including Oasis, worked to address the humanitarian crisis?

  Several Indian CSOs have responded to the humanitarian needs in both the hills and valley districts of Manipur. In the hill districts, the primary providers have been local churches, national aid agencies, volunteers and philanthropic organisations. Many families continue to rely on supplies and assistance provided by civil society and the neighbouring states of Assam, Mizoram and Nagaland.

  Civil society is working to improve the lives of internally displaced people sheltered in relief camps. Those in Churachandpur, for instance, receive vocational training, including tailoring and computer courses. Those who already have specific skills are provided with craft materials such as wool and weaving sets, to knit sweaters and woollen caps, while others have received bamboo wood and plastic knitting wire to make stools. This has become a source of income for many people, making a huge difference in their lives.

   

  What challenges have you faced in doing your work?

  For Oasis India and various aid agencies, the primary challenge has been delivering relief to the valley areas of Manipur, as the national highway was cut off, making it impossible to transport essential supplies without a security convoy. Food and hygiene kits were mainly sourced from neighbouring Mizoram and Nagaland, incurring high costs and taking 15 to 17 hours on a rough road to deliver supplies to tribal districts.

  Over time, Oasis started to assist people in relief camps but could only help displaced people from the Kuki-Zo tribes. Despite efforts by our senior management to overcome obstacles, there have continued to be security challenges in reaching out to the Meitei community.

  Yet another significant problem lies in mobilising resources for relief from national and international donors. The conflict’s nature as being between ethnic communities, which has been projected as having a political colour, has caused many funders to shy away.

  What should be done to resolve the conflict, and how should the international community help?

  International aid is insufficient. Since May 2023, neither the European Commission’s Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations department nor the United Nations Children's Fund have stepped in to provide humanitarian assistance to Manipur. The same is true for the Prime Minister National Relief Fund and the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund. The international community must collaborate with local CSOs that continue taking the lead in providing aid.

  For a genuine resolution to the conflict, both the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities must come to the table, engage in dialogue and avoid any hate speech, and collaborate to establish peaceful coexistence. To facilitate this, a ceasefire should be agreed at all buffer zones. Given the loss of trust in the state government by the tribal Kuki-Zo people, an independent empowered authority could potentially broker a ceasefire between the two warring communities. There are enough sensible people and peace-loving activists in both communities who can play critical roles in bringing about reconciliation and peace.

  To put an end to the violence and prevent its repetition, perpetrators, regardless of ethnicity, should be held accountable. The Supreme Court has ordered the formation of at least 42 special investigation teams to prosecute conflict-related crimes, so at least there’s hope in this regard.

   

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Oasis India through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@Oasisatindia on Twitter.

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

• INDONESIA: ‘Prabowo’s victory represents the worst-case scenario for the future of human rights’

  CIVICUS speaks with Rizky Argama, Executive Director, and Violla Reininda, Programme Manager at theCentre of Indonesian Law and Policy Studies (PSHK), about the results of Indonesia’s 14 February presidential election –the world’s biggest single-day election, in which over 200 million people were eligible to vote.

  Founded in 1998, the PSHK is a research and advocacy institution focusing on legal reform.

  Was the 14 February election free and fair?

  It is difficult to say the election was free and fair. Long before election day, indications of a very unequal competition emerged at various levels.

  The biggest irregularity was the Constitutional Court’s decision to allow presidential and vice-presidential candidates under 40 years of age to run as long as they have experience as regional heads, a requirement tailor-made to pave the way for outgoing President Joko Widodo’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, current mayor of Surakarta, to become a vice-presidential candidate alongside Prabowo Subianto, a former opponent of Jokowi, as the president is called, and now his defence minister. The decision was highly problematic ethically and legally, partly because the chief justice of the Constitutional Court, Jokowi’s brother-in-law, had a conflict of interest in examining and deciding on the case.

  The government also created three new provinces in Papua, where Jokowi and his endorsed presidential candidate receive much support, for political advantage. Jokowi also took advantage of vacancies of regional heads – governors, regents and mayors – to appoint trusted figures as acting regional heads to secure an electoral process that would tilt in his favour.

  Unfair practices also marred the campaign, including Gibran’s endorsement by his father, leading to the use of state funds for his campaign, including for social assistance given to constituents as gifts. Ministers also campaigned openly, breaching expectations of neutrality.

  Several mass media outlets reported biased attitudes from civil servants, both at the central and regional government levels. Officials showed favouritism towards Prabowo, referring to him constantly as Jokowi’s successor, as if the election was a done deal.

  Although the Election Law requires government officials to take leave when campaigning, ministers and regional heads blatantly campaigned while carrying out their duties, which they took advantage of for electoral gain. For example, the minister of trade distributed basic necessities such as oil and rice to people he visited, claiming the aid came from Jokowi and urging them to vote for a candidate who would continue his programmes.

  Shortly before election day, Jokowi and his ministers paid numerous visits to the regions and provided social assistance packages in the form of cash or food items such as rice. Sometimes he provided social assistance to people in locations close to campaign areas visited by other candidates, particularly Ganjar Pranowo. Tempo mass media reported that Jokowi asked his minister of finance to continue increasing the budget allocation for social assistance until election day, including by reallocating funds from other ministries and government agencies.

  Such covert campaigning actions are punishable under the Election Law, but the Election Supervisory Board, which has the authority to investigate such violations, did not take much action.

  Academics from notable universities who spoke up about the need for Jokowi to act as a political leader above the dispute faced criticism from his cabinet members, who accused them of representing foreign interests. They received threats and some had their social media accounts or phones hacked. This created unfavourable conditions for activists and civil society to voice criticism.

  The documentary film Dirty Vote, directed by investigative journalist Dandhy Laksono, outlined the tactics used to manufacture a comfortable win for the Prabowo-Gibran pair. Featuring three highly respected independent legal experts, the film was launched on YouTube three days before the election and immediately gained the attention of more than 13 million viewers. It provided insight into how Prabowo would amass almost 60 per cent of the vote.

  What were the main campaign issues, and what were Prabowo’s promises?

  There were hardly any structured ideas coming from the Prabowo-Gibran campaign. Whether in debates or campaign events, they basically just focused on the need to boost nutrition with free school lunches and milk for kids. In the official debates organised by the Election Commission, candidates were more focused on getting a rise out of their opponents than putting forward original ideas. They even tried to trip up other candidates by using technical terms or uncommon abbreviations.

  They also tried to present themselves as the successors of Jokowi and sold the idea of a new, modern capital city – over two hours by plane from the current capital, Jakarta – that would kickstart development of Kalimantan Island, known for being underdeveloped but rich in natural resources, particularly minerals and coal.

  These were all very expensive promises. Prabowo was criticised for not explaining where the funding would come from. There were also doubts about his understanding of corruption, which he seemed to think was solely the result of financial struggle. His solution was therefore to promise to increase the salaries of state officials and law enforcement officers without addressing the root causes of the problem. Notably, he never mentioned the need to strengthen the Corruption Eradication Commission or human rights protections, drawing significant criticism.

  Why did Prabowo win?

  The Prabowo campaign made very effective use of social media, particularly TikTok. The image crafted by the Prabowo-Gibran duo caught the attention of young voters, who make up the majority of the electorate. This year, around 54 per cent of voters were from generations Y and Z. Prabowo, a retired general suspected of serious human rights violations, played up a cute grandpa image, doing dances at every campaign stop. The lack of historical awareness among younger voters greatly helped him. Meanwhile, Gibran showed off his youthfulness by being cool but dispassionate in front of journalists and on social media.

  Additionally, Prabowo and Gibran are part of an anti-intellectual movement that’s gaining momentum. Many people disregard academics and scientists and prefer leaders who are perceived as doing less talking and taking more tangible action. There is a perception that intellectuals only engage in abstract talk without substantial action, and voters favour leaders who are seen as more action oriented. This sentiment was reinforced by the candidates’ performance in the presidential and vice-presidential debates.

  Prabowo’s campaign style was similar to that of Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr in the Philippines. He used the exact same recipe. There were even reports suggesting he had hired the same political consultant who advised Bongbong, although there’s no evidence for this claim.

  But the main factor behind Prabowo’s victory was the full support of Jokowi. Although Jokowi never explicitly stated his support for Prabowo, all his actions and policies revealed he was the force behind him. Jokowi’s support included efforts to engineer court decisions by appointing his brother-in-law as the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, mobilising regional leaders for the campaign and channelling state funds for social assistance in the run-up to the election.

   

  What were civil society’s reactions to the election results?

  Prabowo is hardly a new face: he has been running for president since 2009, and civil society and human rights activists have consistently called on voters not to vote for perpetrators of human rights violations.

  Before the election, a civil society coalition formed to supervise the vote and gathered reports of irregularities from the public during the voting and counting processes. The collected data is being processed for reporting.

  The Election Commission will only announce the election’s final results in mid-March, and even then there will be legal proceedings to dispute them in the Constitutional Court. However, results are unlikely to change significantly, and Prabowo will solidify his victory before mid-year.

  The outcome of this year’s election was particularly predictable due to the strong interference and support of the current government to perpetuate its authority through Prabowo and Gibran.

  Civil society needs to anticipate the possibility of new laws or regulations that further restrict civic space, and must remain vigilant against the potential use of defamation laws against people or organisations critical of the authorities.

   

  Do you have concerns about the future of democracy and human rights in Indonesia?

  Democratic decline has been evident over the past five years under the Jokowi administration, and Prabowo’s victory is unlikely to improve the situation. It may worsen it. Prabowo has displayed unfriendly attitudes towards journalists on several occasions, raising concerns about press freedom. Freedom of expression is also at risk, as members of Prabowo’s campaign team have a history of using draconian laws to silence government critics.

  Freedoms of association and peaceful assembly are under threat. The Jokowi administration has opened the door to the dissolution of civil society organisations without due process, and several organisations deemed to oppose the government have been disbanded. The situation is unlikely to improve under Prabowo.

  Prabowo’s victory represents the worst-case scenario for the future of human rights in Indonesia. Not only does he lack perspective and commitment to human rights, but he was also involved in the abduction of activists in 1998 when he was the commander of Indonesia’s special military forces. The longstanding efforts of Indonesian civil society to push for the resolution of various cases of serious human rights violations will be further from materialising when Prabowo leads the country.

  Moreover, Prabowo also lacks a clear track record or vision on the protection of excluded groups, including women and gender minorities. During official debates, when discussing women’s rights, Prabowo said that the key to empowering women was to provide nutrition for pregnant women. Such a response demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the complexities of the rights violations faced by women, including violence and lack of opportunities in education and political participation.

  Last but not least, Prabowo and Gibran seem more focused on economic development and their own businesses than democracy. This is just not a priority for them. In a recent discussion on shrinking civic space in Indonesia, Prabowo’s spokesperson said there were no issues with Indonesia’s democracy, which caused significant backlash. He basically chooses to disregard everything wrong with our democracy.

  ---

  Civic space in Indonesia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the PSHK through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow it onTwitter andInstagram.

• Introducing CIVICUS Impact Stories: Understanding our contribution towards expanded civic and democratic space

  A message from Lysa John, Secretary-General of CIVICUS   

  Dear CIVICUS members and allies,

  In July 2022, CIVICUS started delivering on ourrevised strategic plan, focusing on one overachieving goal across the alliance: ‘to strengthen civil society and civic action for expanded civic and democratic space.’ Since then, we’ve embarked on a journey to better evidence, understand and share our contributions to defending and improving civic and democratic freedoms. 

  We know that long-term systemic change takes time and cannot be achieved alone. And yet, we are already beginning to see early signals of transformative change from our collective efforts. In this update, I share three examples of impact from a combination of our influencing, organising, and solidarity actions.

  Solidarity Informed Member Engagement

  Within the framework of our revised strategy, our primary objective has been to build counterpower and strengthen solidarity among CIVICUS members. Our Membership and Networks team curates opportunities to enhance capacities and facilitate deeper engagement between members working on similar themes or sharing similar challenges. We’ve been proud to support member participation atCOP28 and the Climate Justice Camp. Our member-driven We RISE! initiative supports 20 organisations to sustain local campaigns to overcome challenges related to the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (FoPA). 

  CIVICUS Member, HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement shares:“The We RISE! campaign has been a pivotal moment for us, setting a new trajectory for our future endeavours. It has not only reshaped our internal strategies but also fostered a broader regional evaluation among our partners regarding the centrality of FoPA. This campaign is poised to redefine our operational approach and impact in the years ahead, marking the most profound change in our organisation's history.”

  And below, is just one of many examples of how our members are promoting the right to peaceful assembly. See SALAM DHR’s We RISE! campaign video, which draws attention to the legal framework on the right to peaceful protest in Bahrain.

  

  CIVICUS research and analysis drives global public discourse and debate on civic and democratic space

  In a time of mounting global obstacles, conflict, and crisis, our research and analysis remain a steady anchor, highlighting the threats to civic freedoms and identifying trends in civil society action. We are encouraged to see the growing use and reference of our key publications, People Power Under Attack and the State of Civil Society Reports. From January – April of this year alone, CIVICUS research and analysis garnered 1,700 media mentions across 90 countries, in 31 languages.

  Following the release of Power People Under Attack in December 2023, a student organisation at Koblenz University organised an event titled "Day Against Repression” to discuss the implications of the crackdown on climate activism and democracy in Germany. 

  In February 2024, the CIVICUS Monitor also published a historical Global Data Report,Rights Reversed, identifying seven key trends in civic space from 2019 to 2023. I had the opportunity to present this analysis at this year’s Norad Conference on the theme of Rights and Resistance. I used this opportunity to highlight the effectiveness of translational solidarity in achieving gains in climate justice, LGBTIQA+ and women’s movements. Watch the full intervention below.

  Most recently, our State of Civil Society report drew interest from global media, including:

  • The Jurist- covered State of Civil Society report 2024 
  • Climate Home News - cited State of Civil Society report 2024
  • Al Jazeera - referenced the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist 
  • The Guardian - cited the Monitor’s downgrade of Bangladesh to “closed”

  Civil society’s voice and needs are amplified in the United Nations’ process and mechanisms.

  Over the past year, our Geneva and New York Hubs have been playing a critical role in diversifying civil society voices at the United Nations (UN). The Geneva Hub has significantly increased its support for human rights defenders and activists, enabling them to deliver Human Rights Council (HRC) statements and participate in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. CIVICUS members and partners have delivered 51% of our HRC statements, a notable increase from 25% in 2022.  Additionally, we’ve supported grassroots civil society participation in the UPR process, providing a platform for those closest to the issues to share tangible recommendations to improve human rights in their countries. These interventions are complemented by advocacy missions and side events in around the Geneva processes to facilitate ongoing dialogue for renewed commitments.

  Our New York Hub has also supported consultations to refresh long-standing calls for meaningful civil society participation at the UN. The #UNMute global campaign is now driven by 460 partners and 60 member states with key recommendations to enhance the voice of civil society at the UN. Ahead of the Summit of the Future Conference, our UN Advisor Jesselina Ranacautioned how the NairobiSummit of the Futureconference could further sideline civil society, and Mandeep Tiwana, our Chief Officer for Evidence and Engagement,highlighting the campaign's key recommendations, including the appointment of civil society envoy.

  Civil society has been key to influencing the adoption of peaceful resolutions at the UN. Following the 53rd session of the HRC, CIVICUS especially welcomed the adoption of theCivilSocietySpace resolution, which acknowledged the positive role of civil society participation in UN mechanisms. The resolution further asks the Human Rights Commissioner to engage in a comprehensive consultative process to regularly assess civic space trends, which may lead, in the long term, to the development of indicators and benchmarks. This could not have been realised without the civil society. 

  These instanceshave only strengthened our conviction that our work with and for groups affected by the combined impact of civic space restrictions and structural forms ofdiscrimination will drive long-term, systemic change. As we continue this journey, weremain committed to prioritising collective effort and learning, and empowering our members and partners to effect change locally and regionally. Together, we have the power to build a world where civic freedoms thrive.

  In solidarity,

  Lysa John (LinkedIn)