War

  • Arrêtez la guerre: Déclaration de solidarité

    Nous, groupes de la société civile des cinq continents, qui travaillons ensemble pour un monde juste, pacifique, durable et prospère, appelons conjointement à une solution négociée pour mettre fin à la guerre en Ukraine aussi rapidement que possible. Cela doit inclure une cessation immédiate des hostilités contre les civils et le retrait des forces militaires et des armes russes d’Ukraine, associées à une déclaration commune et à la fourniture de garanties de sécurité par et pour toutes les parties.

    Dans un monde déjà ravagé par de multiples crises, telles que la pandémie de COVID-19 et l’escalade du changement climatique, ce conflit déchire des communautés déjà fragiles et des millions d’individus sont confrontés à la guerre, au déplacement, à la perte de leurs maisons et de leurs moyens de subsistance.

    Un mois s’est déjà écoulé, mais plus ce conflit dure, plus il est susceptible d’être dévastateur pour les personnes vivant en Ukraine, en Russie et partout dans le monde. Il faut l’arrêter maintenant.

    1) Arrêtez la guerre

    L’attaque contre l’Ukraine par l’armée russe et la guerre contre un pays souverain marquent une violation inacceptable du droit international. Nous appelons à la fin immédiate de la guerre en Ukraine, à un cessez-le-feu et au retrait des forces russes, ainsi qu’à la suppression progressive de toutes les sanctions selon un calendrier convenu. La dévastation de nombreuses villes et le meurtre de civils innocents et d’infrastructures civiles ne peuvent être justifiés.

    Nous demandons aux tierces parties d’empêcher une nouvelle escalade militaire du conflit et d’aider à faciliter les négociations de paix.

    En outre, il est inacceptable et insuffisant que jusqu’à présent seule une poignée d’hommes ait été impliquée dans les négociations de paix.

    Nous appelons à ce que les négociations de paix incluent la société civile et les représentants de ceux qui sont directement concernés, en particulier les femmes, notamment d’Ukraine et de Russie.

    2) Respectez les droits humains internationaux

    Nous sommes solidaires du peuple ukrainien. Les droits des civils doivent être respectés. Après un mois de conflit, les impacts humanitaires entraînent des déplacements massifs de personnes, des pertes de vies et de moyens de subsistance. Nous sommes très inquiets que cette grave violation du droit international ait un impact extrêmement négatif sur la sécurité et la démocratie en Europe et dans le monde.

    Nous appelons également au respect des droits de l’homme en Russie, de nombreux Russes se sont levés pour condamner la violence et leurs voix doivent être entendues. La protestation pacifique doit être reconnue comme une forme d’expression légitime.

    Nous appelons au respect des droits de l’homme et de l’État de droit.

    3) Arrêtez le militarisme et l’agression dans le monde

    Tragiquement, ce n’est pas la première fois que de tels conflits et guerres se produisent, loin de là  – il est donc crucial de réduire la militarisation et l’autoritarisme partout dans le monde.

    La situation actuelle en Ukraine intervient dans un contexte humain où les conflits armés, la violence sous toutes ses formes, l’autoritarisme, la corruption et la répression aveugle affectent la vie de millions de personnes dans le monde et violent les droits humains des personnes jeunes et âgées dans des pays tels que : Myanmar, Yémen, Palestine, Syrie, Soudan du Sud, République centrafricaine, Éthiopie, Colombie, Brésil, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Guatemala, El Salvador et autres.

    Tous les conflits doivent être traités avec le même niveau de préoccupation, toutes les vies affectées par un conflit ont la même valeur.

    Nous appelons au même niveau de soutien pour mettre fin aux conflits et assurer un soutien financier aux personnes déplacées et aux réfugiés d’autres conflits.

    4) Réorienter les fonds militaires vers un avenir juste et durable

    La guerre en Ukraine a déjà eu un impact dévastateur sur l’économie mondiale, en particulier sur les pays du Sud. Il y aura probablement des perturbations majeures et des augmentations significatives du coût de l’énergie et de la production, une augmentation des coûts alimentaires et, en même temps, les budgets seront réorientés vers les dépenses militaires.

    Le militarisme de la Russie est alimenté par les combustibles fossiles et il est donc essentiel d’arrêter les investissements dans les combustibles fossiles et de passer immédiatement à des formes d’énergie propres. Il est d’une importance cruciale que nous réduisions la consommation de pétrole et de gaz et augmentions rapidement les investissements dans les énergies renouvelables afin de lutter contre la crise climatique qui commence maintenant.

    Nous appelons à un engagement spécifique de l’ONU pour réduire les dépenses consacrées aux conflits militaires et réinvestir ces dépenses dans la protection sociale et l’énergie propre.

    5) Établir un fonds mondial pour la paix

    Nous appelons les États membres à se souvenir de la vision fondatrice de l’ONU et de son Conseil de sécurité, à respecter la principale raison pour laquelle cet organisme international  a été créé : éviter toute forme de guerre et la souffrance de l’humanité.

    L’Agenda 2030 trace la voie vers un monde pacifique, juste, durable et prospère ; et des étapes et des actions beaucoup plus ambitieuses doivent être entreprises pour s’assurer que les cibles et les objectifs sont atteints.

    Nous appelons les États membres à créer un fonds mondial pour la paix afin de renforcer le rôle des médiateurs internationaux et des forces de maintien de la paix, l’ONU doit agir !

    Les 191 signataires: (Signez cette déclaration)
    Global

    • Action for Sustainable Development
    • CIVICUS
    • GCAP
    • SDG Watch Europe
    • SHERPA Institute
    • Vivat International
    • Academics Stand Against Poverty
    • Gaia U International, Global Ecovillage Network US
    • VIVAT International
    • International Movement of Catholic Students (IMCS) Pax Romana, Asia Pacific.
    • Asia and Pacific Alliance of YMCAs

    Asie

    • Farmers’ Voice (Krisoker Sor), Bangladesh
    • Bangladesh Institute of Human Rights(BIHR), Bangladesh
    • JusticeMakers Bangladesh, Bangladesh
    • Circular Economy Alliance India, India
    • Kethoseno Peseyie, India
    • CHIKKA FEDERATION OF INDIA, India
    • Independent Individual freelancer named Hitesh BHATT & MS JALPA PATEL-INDIA., India
    • Sikshasandhan, India
    • Sustainable Development Council, India
    • Association For Promotion Sustainable Development, India
    • Peace in Education, India
    • THE CATALYSTS CO, India
    • SOCIETY FOR ORPHAN, NEGLECTED AND YOUTHS (SONY), India
    • FAUDAR RURAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY FOR HARIJANS, India
    • GIRL UP CHIKKA, India
    • International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, Indonesia
    • Sustainable agriculture and environment, Iran
    • Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability(JYPS), Japan
    • UNISC International, Japan
    • Silambam Asia, Malaysia
    • World Yoga Association, Malaysia
    • World Silambam Association (WSA), Malaysia
    • Climate Change Working Group, Myanmar
    • COMMUNITY SUPPORT ASSOCIATION OF NEPAL, Nepal
    • Sheni legal Service and Research Center, Nepal
    • SATHI SAMUHA (Friends Group), Nepal
    • Youth Advocacy Nepal (YAN), Nepal
    • Restructuring Nepal, Nepal
    • Human Rights Focus Pakistan (HRFP), Pakistan
    • Haakro Welfare Association, Pakistan
    • SSpS, Philippines
    • Lanka Fundamental Rights Organization, Sri Lanka
    • Missionary Sisters Servants of the Holy Spirit, Viet Nam
    • AwazCDS, Pakistan
    • Korean Advocates for Global Health, Korea
    • National Campaign For Sustainable Development (NACASUD-Nepal), Nepal
    • Tarayana Foundation, Bhutan
    • General Secretary Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee, Pakistan
    • Think Centre Singapore, Singapore

    Europe

    • Missionsprokur St. Gabriel International, Austria
    • Greenskills, Austria
    • Mikel Díez Sarasola, España
    • Circular Initiatives Roadmap (CIR), Estonia
    • Pekka Kuusi Ecofoundation, Finland
    • World Family Organization, France
    • ONG (Nouveau Point de vue ), France outre-mer
    • Association for Farmers Rights Defense, AFRD, Georgia
    • Global Ecovillage Network, Germany
    • Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
    • IAHV, Germany
    • Patrick Paul Walsh, Ireland
    • International Presentation Association, Ireland
    • DMDA, Ireland
    • Jan Martin Bang, Norway
    • Norwegian Forum for Development and Environment, Norway
    • Moray Carshare, Scotland
    • Salisbury centre Edinburgh, Scotland UK
    • Drustvo Soncni gric, Slovenija
    • Alfonso Flaquer, Spain
    • Centro de Transformacion del Conflicto Humano, Spain
    • Findhorn Foundation Fellows, Sweden
    • Justice for Prosperity Foundation, The Netherlands
    • British Autism Advocates, U.K.
    • Integral City Meshworks Inc., UK
    • BPWUK, Uk
    • Findhorn Fellows, UK
    • Emerson College, Forest Row, East Sussex, UK., UK
    • Barnaby Green, United Kingdom
    • Dr. Colin Thomas Barnes, United Kingdom
    • Development Alternatives, United Kingdom
    • NAWO and the Judith Trust, United Kingdom
    • Victor S Ient, United Kingdom
    • Findhorn Foundation & Park Ecovillage Trust, United Kingdom
    • InnerLinks, United Kingdom
    • Alan Watson Featherstone, United Kingdom
    • Open Circle Consulting Ltd, United Kingdom
    • Poems for Parliament, United Kingdom
    • Northern Ireland Women’s European Platform, United Kingdom
    • Ecologia Youth Trust, United Kingdom
    • Soroptimist International, United Kingdom
    • Commonwealth Medical Trust, United Kingdom
    • Widows for Peace through Democracy (WPD), United Kingdom
    • SecurityWomen, United Kingdom

    Moyen-Orient et Afrique du Nord

    • Gatef, Egypt
    • Junior enterprise, Tunisia

    Océanie

    • Plowright Studios, Australia
    • Aaron Owen, Australia
    • PIANGO, Fiji
    • Deepti Karan Weiss, Fiji
    • The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, New Zealand
    • GENOA, Oceania and Asia

    Afrique subsaharienne

    • RESEAU SOS FEMMES EN DETRESSE – SOS FED, BURUNDI
    • YUNIBF (Youth United for a Brighter Future), Cameroon
    • Action pour le Développement (A4D), Cameroun
    • Centre Oecuménique pour la Promotion du Monde Rural, Congo-Kinshasa
    • AGIR POUR LA SÉCURITÉ ET LA SOUVERAINETÉ ALIMENTAIRE ASSA, Congo-Kinshasa( RDCONGO)
    • Save the Climat, Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Locate software, Ethiopia
    • Michael Girimay Gebremedhine, Ethiopia
    • New English private school, Ethiopia
    • Taminnova, Ethiopian
    • Apostolic Ministerial International Network, Ghana
    • Youth Harvest Foundation Ghana, Ghana
    • Abundant Grace Female Foundation, Ghana
    • Elizka Relief Foundation, Ghana
    • Parlement des Jeunes Leaders de la Société Civile Guinéenne, Guinée
    • BASO, Kenya
    • The Social Justice Centers Working Group, Kenya
    • New Generation Outreach, Kenya
    • Thomas Kaydor,  Jr., LIBERIA
    • Innovations for change, Malawi
    • Action for Environmental Sustainability, Malawi
    • Peoples Federation for National Peace and Development (PEFENAP), Malawi
    • Association du Développement et de la Promotion de Droits de l’Homme, Mauritanie
    • Dieumax Ventures, Nigeria
    • Leadership Watch, Nigeria
    • Initiative For Peace And Stability ( IPAS), Nigeria
    • HETAVED SKILLS ACADEMY AND NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, Nigeria
    • Environment and Development Advocates (EDA), Nigeria
    • ASSOCIATION COMMUNAUTAIRE POUR LE BIEN ETRE ET LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE /ACOBEPE ONGD, REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO
    • Nouveaux Droits de l’homme Congo Brazzaville, République du Congo
    • GCAP-SENGAL, Senegal
    • EARTH REGENERATIVE PROJECT SIERRA LEONE-NGO, SIERRA LEONE
    • Volunteers Involving Organisations Network, Sierra Leone
    • Mahawa Foundation, Sierra Leone
    • Waste For Change NPC, South Africa
    • Kadesh International, South Africa
    • African Monitor Trust, South Africa
    • Community Health Organization(CH), Tanzania
    • VEILLE CITOYENNE TOGO, TOGO
    • Espace Vie et Action-Togo (EVA-T), Togo
    • Sugur Development Agency (SDA), Uganda
    • Vision Centre Africa, Uganda
    • Human Nature Projets Uganda, Uganda
    • Step Up Youth Initiative, Uganda
    • Development Education Community Project, Zambia

    Amérique

    • AidWatch Canada, Canada
    • Vision GRAM-International, Canada and  D R Congo
    • Gloria Rodríguez, Colombia
    • Movimiento Nacional Cimarrón, Colombia
    • Alianza ONG, Dominican Republic
    • Christian Acosta, Ecuador
    • CECADE, El Salvador
    • Union des Amis Socio Culturels d’Action en Developpement (UNASCAD), Haiti
    • Jamaica Climate Change Youth Council, Jamaica
    • Uso Inteligente ASV AC, México
    • MY World México, México
    • Humberto Soto, México
    • Coordinadora por los Derechos de la Infancia y la Adolescencia de Paraguay, Paraguay
    • Consorcio Agroecológico Peruano, Perú
    • Raise Your Voice Saint Lucia Inc, Saint Lucia
    • UNANIMA International, United States
    • Congregation of the Mission, United States
    • World Union for Progressive Judaism, United States
    • Transdiaspora Network, United States
    • Sustainably Wise, United States
    • Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights, United States
    • The GOOD Group, United States
    • Let There Be Light International, United States
    • ALICIA STAMMER, United States
    • Andrea Ruiz, United States
    • TRIPPINZ CARE INC, United States
    • Pleading for the Widows International Foundation, United States
    • Missionary Oblates of Immaculate, United States
    • Oblate Ecological Initiative, United States
    • United Nations Association of the National Capital Area, United States
    • New Future Foundation, United States
    • World Roma Federation, US
    • Kosmos Journal; Unity Earth, USA
    • NGO Committee on Sustainable Development-NY, USA
    • Volunteer Groups Alliance, USA
    • Findhorn Foundation, USA
    • TAP Network, USA
    • Global Choices, USA/ UK
    • REDHNNA, Venezuela
    • OMEP World Organization for Early Childhood Education, Argentina
    • Fundación para la Democracia Internacional, Argentina
    • Fundacion para Estudio e investigacion de la Mujer, Argentina
    • Reaccion Climatica, Bolivia
    • Viviane Weingärtner, Brazil
  • BALKANS: ‘The emergence of white supremacism adds another layer of vulnerability for migrants and refugees’

    MyriamCorreaCIVICUS speaks with Myriam Correa, director of Collective Aid, about the situation of migrants across the Balkan migration route.

    Initially under the name BelgrAid, Collective Aid was established in 2017 in response to the changing needs of migrants and refugees in Serbia. It currently has offices in Bosnia and Herzegovina, France and Serbia. It provides services to cover aid gaps and improve the lives of people on the move.

    What effects have recent policy changes had on migration along the Balkan route?

    In early 2023, we witnessed an increase in migration along the Balkan route, particularly in Bosnia and Serbia, even though migrants were staying for a shorter time. This posed challenges for organisations like ours in locating and assisting people. Increased movement and rapid turnover made migrants harder to reach and rendered the phenomenon less visible – just as the authorities wanted. However, from a humanitarian standpoint, this only heightened risks.

    On 25 October, Serbia initiated a military operation along its border with Hungary, targeting areas with high levels of border crossings. This led to the closure of refugee camps in the north and the forced relocation of migrants to centres in the south. Military presence escalated tensions, making access to migrants even more challenging. Arms proliferated and we observed instances of violence, including mistreatment of our personnel by the police.

    The subsequent absence of migrants in previously bustling areas indicated that the authorities had achieved their aim. However, some traces of migration still lingered, albeit in reduced numbers, with Bosnian camps experiencing a notable influx.

    The exact forms of migration are now unclear. Recent actions by the Serbian government, such as the temporary closure of southern camps, add to the uncertainty surrounding future migration patterns. As we continue to navigate these challenges, it is imperative for humanitarian efforts to remain adaptable and responsive to the evolving dynamics along the Balkan route.

    What routes are migrants taking to reach western Europe?

    Migrants travel from Turkey to the Aegean Islands or Evros and then enter Greece. After Greece, there are various routes. Some people take flights, but others cannot afford air travel. Some take shortcuts. Some enter Bulgaria directly from Turkey, while others enter the country from Greece. As a result needs are increasingly high in Bulgaria.

    Several organisations currently focus on Bulgaria. We recently conducted a location assessment covering the border between Serbia and Bulgaria, the capital, Sofia, and the border between Bulgaria and Turkey. Significant numbers of people are crossing and have a pressing need for basic humanitarian services such as food, water, sanitation and hygiene services.

    Local organisations lack government support to advocate against human rights violations. This means there is a crucial advocacy need in Bulgaria. One notable town is Harmali, near the border with Turkey, which has camps for asylum seekers and is heavily militarised. Sofia also has a significant migrant population, expected to increase due to Romania’s inclusion in the Schengen area. This makes Sofia a potential hotspot.

    Further along the border with Serbia, Ragueman serves as a major crossing point. This region hosts several camps, primarily in southern Serbia near the Bulgarian border. The journey continues through Bosnia and Croatia into the European Union (EU). However, there are challenges in crossing the Bosnia-Croatia border, particularly at Hajj, due to reported pushbacks. Our organisation monitors border violence, mostly reported from the Croatian side, with Sarajevo serving as a refuge for those pushed back, particularly during harsh winters.

    Bulgaria has become a gateway to the rest of Europe. But specific points like Seredets and road 79 pose dangers, with smugglers providing stimulants to keep migrants awake during crossings, leading to fatal consequences. Both Bulgaria and Serbia have seen severe instances of violence, with reports of brutal treatment by border authorities, including mutilation and burning. Such atrocities are alarming and demand immediate attention.

    In contrast, Bosnia is emerging as a relatively safe passage, providing temporary respite for migrants. The living conditions in Bosnian camps have improved, though challenges persist during winters due to inadequate insulation, a lack of essential items and low maintenance standards.

    Overall, the journey is perilous, with varying experiences based on financial resources and geographical factors. But despite the hardships, migrants persevere, hoping for a better life in Europe.

    What’s the situation of migrants from conflict-affected regions travelling along the Balkan route?

    The short answer is that these migrants experience an unbearable amount of traumatisation. Most people who traverse this route are fleeing conflict – including genocide, ethnic oppression, religious persecution and collapsing regimes. They come from countries such as Afghanistan, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syria. They are not economic migrants. They are seeking safety in Europe. It is shocking that they have to endure such trials, particularly considering that while Bosnia and Serbia are not EU countries, they are still in Europe. And the fact that Bulgaria and Croatia are part of the EU raises thorny questions about why such hardships persist.

    The initial reaction is often shock, followed by a profound sense of hopelessness. It is disheartening to realise that safety remains a distant dream and the journey ahead is bleak. People are aware that their lives remain at risk but have limited knowledge about the challenges they will face. Misinformation and reluctance to share the full extent of their suffering with loved ones exacerbate the situation.

    Regardless of migrants’ origins, the challenges they face are consistent. They endure rough living conditions, sleeping in tents, bushes, forests or abandoned buildings. The emergence of white supremacist sentiments in Europe adds another layer of vulnerability, making them easy targets for violence.

    It is important to note that most people crossing the Balkan route are single men, with few women and families. While there are some families on the road and a family camp in Sarajevo, most migrants are single men. This is a reflection of the perilous conditions along the route, which are unsuitable for women and children.

    Smuggling gangs are streamlining the process, making crossings more efficient, but at the cost of safety. Migrants are left at the mercy of criminals who view them as a mere source of income and are indifferent to their wellbeing. Many disappear without a trace.

    Survivors face immense psychological trauma. They endure sexual, physical and psychological violence, compounded by environmental hardships and homelessness. The perpetual threat triggers a constant fight-or-flight response, hindering cognitive functions and deteriorating mental health. Chronic stress, reflected in elevated cortisol levels, poses severe health risks.

    Hygiene-related issues, such as scabies, exacerbate the already dire situation. Lack of access to proper sanitation and healthcare amplifies the suffering, turning minor ailments into life-threatening conditions. The lack of awareness of and attention to these issues perpetuates the cycle of suffering, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive solutions and compassionate action.

    In sum, the refugee experience in Europe is a harrowing journey marked by trauma, violence and despair. It is imperative to address the underlying issues and provide adequate support to those in need, ensuring that every person is treated with dignity and compassion.

    What support do civil society organisations working along the Balkan route need for their work?

    The most obvious, yet the truest, answer is funding. Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, attention and empathy have understandably shifted towards Ukraine and its people. However, grassroots organisations working on the frontlines with other migrant groups continue to face significant challenges in fundraising. For instance, Collective Aid used to easily raise €15,000 to €30,000 (approx. US$16,200 to US$32,400) twice a year, but now struggles to raise as little as €5,000 (approx. US$ 5,400). This has taken a massive toll on these organisations.

    The redirection of donor funding to other areas, such as Lebanon and the Middle East, has further compounded the issue. The recent crises in Gaza, Sudan, Syria and Turkey have also diverted attention and resources away from the ongoing migrant crisis within European borders.

    Lack of financial support is the biggest obstacle faced by grassroots organisations, pushing them to their limits as they struggle to support migrants on the ground.

    Get in touch with Collective Aid through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow @collective_aid onTwitter andInstagram.
  • BELARUS: ‘There is a pro-democracy civil society that opposes the war and advocates for democratic reforms’

    AnastasiyaVasilchukCIVICUS speaks with Anastasiya Vasilchuk of Viasna about the escalatingrepression and criminalisation of civil society in Belarus.

    Founded in 1996, Viasna (‘Spring’ in Belarusian) is a human rights civil society organisation (CSO) based in Minsk, the capital, with regional organisations in most Belarusian cities and around 200 members throughout the country. Its main goal is to promote respect for human rights and contribute to the development of civic society in Belarus.

    What is the current situation of civil society activists and organisations in Belarus?

    At the moment, the work of activists and CSOs in Belarus is practically paralysed. Those activists who remain in Belarus and try to remain active are at great risk. Volunteer activists who are not members of any CSO are being detained and charged administratively and even criminally for any form of activity, including sending parcels to political prisoners and organising solidarity meetings, and are tried under phony charges such as reposting ‘extremist materials’ found on their phones or ‘disobeying’ police officers.

    Members of CSOs who have remained in Belarus are being persecuted on the basis of article 193-1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits activities on behalf of organisations that are unregistered or have been deprived of registration. Since 2021, about 1,180 CSOS have been liquidated or are in the process of liquidation. All human rights organisations have already been deprived of registration, so it is impossible for them to work legally inside Belarus.

    In order to keep functioning, most human rights CSOs, Viasna included, have been forced to leave Belarus and continue their work from abroad. Almost all meetings and legal consultations with people who have been subjected to repression are now taking place online. The regional branches of our organisation have also only been able to continue working from abroad, collecting information on repression in their regions through local volunteers who put themselves in harm’s way every day, as well as through open-source investigation techniques, which employees had to learn fast after being forcibly relocated.

    Generally speaking, displacement has brought many challenges for civil society. We’ve had to search for extra funding, in light of the usually higher costs of living in host countries. We’ve had to rethink our work processes, which were previously based mainly on direct personal communication with victims of human rights violations, and shift them online. And we’ve had to focus on maintaining the visibility and significance of our activities in the eyes of victims of human rights violations in Belarus.

    Despite the ongoing crackdown on dissent, Viasna and other human rights CSOs continue to document human rights violations, which are occurring on a huge scale and on a daily basis in Belarus, to make them visible and try to elicit a reaction from the international community.

    How are Belarusian CSOs supporting activists under threat?

    Viasna is working for persecuted activists to be recognised as political prisoners and providing further assistance to them, as well as to other victims of repression. We collect information about people detained for political motives all over the country, and alongside other CSOs that are part of our human rights coalition we highlight their cases as political prisoners and provide comprehensive support to them and their families, including providing free legal advice, sending them care packages and leading advocacy campaigns for their release. Right now, we are also looking for resources and opportunities to help political prisoners who are being released and are in need of material, psychological and medical support.

    Other CSOs provide other forms of support to political prisoners and repressed activists, depending on their area of work. For example, women’s human rights organisations provide support to female political prisoners, while independent trade unions, which have also been forced to leave the country, provide assistance to their arrested colleagues. There are also specialised funds and initiatives that provide medical and psychological support to victims of repression.

    What have been the impacts of Russia’s war on Ukraine on Belarusian civil society?

    In the present context we can identify several impacts. Immediately after Russia invaded Ukraine, many Belarusian CSOs jointly condemned the Russian aggression and demonstrated their solidarity with the people of Ukraine, and some CSOs provided humanitarian assistance. The outbreak of war actualised the problem of Russian political influence in Belarus and highlighted the fact that Belarus is exposed to a potential military threat from Russia, which has become a key area of concern for some CSOs.

    Particularly in the first months of the war, the attitude of some international actors towards Belarusian CSOs changed due to the pro-Russian position of the Belarusian illegitimate authorities, and the problem of the severe political repression ongoing in Belarus began to fade into the background. The ongoing war has meant that Belarusian CSOs have had to make additional efforts to make sure their voice is heard, reminding the outside world that there is more to Belarus than the regime of President Alexander Lukashenko. Belarus also has a pro-democracy civil society that opposes the war and advocates for democratic reforms.

    What further support does Belarusian civil society need from theinternational community?

    Belarusian civil society, including Viasna, has continued to receive financial and informational support from international allies. However, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine some major donors, who had helped ensure stable long-term funding for civil society, reduced or completely stopped their assistance to Belarusian civil society. We are therefore in much need of long-term, stable financial assistance.

    Regarding informational support, we are currently actively working to expand the network of international actors interested in the human rights situation in Belarus. Informational support is a key element for raising awareness of systemic human rights violations in Belarus.

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

    Get in touch with Viasna through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@Viasna onTwitter.
  • GLOBAL ARMS TRADE: ‘By halting the supply of weapons, states can help prevent human rights violations’

    Hine WaiLooseCIVICUS discusses civil society efforts to control arms proliferation with Hine-Wai Loose, Director of Control Arms, a global civil society coalition with over 300 partners in all regions of the world.

    Despite the extensive international effort that led to the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, challenges remain in regulating the international arms trade and ensuring compliance with international law. Rising tensions only encourage increases in military spending, which is evidenced in the arms industry’s ongoing expansion. Civil society advocates such as Control Arms are pushing for disarmament, stronger arms controls and greater compliance and accountability.

    Why’s disarmament important, and why’s it so difficult to achieve?

    Disarmament can make a significant contribution to building global peace and security. When countries such as Russia and the USA agree to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals through treaties such as the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, it fosters trust and cooperation between nations.

    Disarmament and arms control measures also play a crucial role in protecting civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflict or subjected to serious human rights abuses committed with guns, for instance. A good example of an instrument with the potential to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure during armed conflicts is the Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, the first international instrument to explicitly recognise that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has serious humanitarian consequences.

    Weapons are also an expensive business. Disarmament can free up resources that can be redirected to economic and social wellbeing.

    However, when tensions between countries are as high as they are today, it is particularly challenging to advance disarmament and arms control treaties and norms. In these moments of elevated tensions there can be an increased risk of miscalculations or mistakes that could result in the threat or use of a nuclear weapon.

    Another major challenge is that states invest heavily in arms, using them as an insurance policy against uncertainty. As a result, the ever-expanding arms industry undermines efforts to create a more stable environment. Once tensions eventually subside, it will be difficult to reverse the arms industry’s increased capacity.

    What’s the role of the arms industry in fuelling conflicts?

    In the wake of the events of 7 October, the Wall Street Journal reported a six per cent increase in the value of US arms industry stocks, highlighting the inextricable link between the arms industry and the war machine.

    According to the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the arms industry has clear human rights obligations. But the industry is reluctant to accept responsibility for the impact of its products on human rights.

    In western countries, the arms industry often claims to defend democracy, borders and human rights. If these claims were sincere, the arms industry would ensure its operations comply with human rights standards. This would be crucial to reducing the negative impact of arms production and distribution on global conflicts.

    How does Control Arms work for effective arms control?

    Control Arms was established to build an international coalition to support the negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty aims to regulate the international arms trade, prevent the transfer of arms that could facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law and reduce the human suffering caused by irresponsible arms transfers.

    Our first objective is amplifying the voices of civil society in the arms control dialogue. We aim to ensure that those affected by irresponsible arms transfers and those working on the ground are heard and included in deliberations on the international arms trade.

    Our second objective focuses on strengthening the rules governing international conventional arms transfers. We seek to strengthen the ATT’s norms and rules by engaging directly with states and advocating for stronger regulations.

    The third objective is to promote transparency and accountability in the global arms trade. An independent project of Control Arms is the ATT Monitor, through which an annual report assessing reports submitted under the ATT and providing valuable insights into the implementation of the treaty is produced.

    We participate in multilateral forums, from the ATT Conferences of States Parties to the Human Rights Council, to raise awareness how real-world cases of arms transfers that are not in compliance with international law impact on civilians. We explain how arms transfers affect human rights and international humanitarian law in places such as Gaza, Myanmar and Yemen. We identify states involved in questionable arms transfers and seek to hold them accountable for their actions. Engaging in such advocacy is not always easy, and nor is it necessarily welcome, but it is essential to ensuring that multilateral deliberations are informed by reality and states are called to account for their actions.

    What are the ATT’s key provisions?

    The ATT places international humanitarian law and international human rights law at the centre of arms transfers decisions. Article 6 prohibits transfers contrary to a state’s obligations under international law, or in cases where a state party has knowledge at the time of the authorisation that the weapons would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

    If the provisions of Article 6 do not apply, then before a state can transfer weapons it must undertake an assessment under Article 7. Under this assessment, an exporting state party is required without discrimination to ‘assess the potential’ that the weapons ‘would contribute to or undermine international peace and security’ or could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law. I am oversimplifying the risk assessment, but this is it in a nutshell.

    Even states that have not joined the ATT still have obligations under international customary law, which includes countries such as the USA. The four Geneva Conventions and customary international law obligate all states to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. By ending their supply of items at risk of being used in conflict, major arms exporting states can help bring an end to serious violations of international humanitarian law and most importantly to the suffering being witnessed in places such as Gaza, Haiti, Myanmar and Sudan.

    What are the challenges to the ATT’s effectiveness?

    There are a range of challenges, and these largely concern compliance with the ATT. For example, some national courts refuse to deal with legal challenges to government decisions to transfer weapons, considering them a matter of government policy rather than law. This limits the ability of the judiciary to hold governments accountable for arms transfers that may violate international law. Another problem being encountered is that some states announce a suspension of arms transfers but continue to transfer weapons, ammunition and parts and components under contracts established before suspension was announced. A third example is when companies originally established in countries that have strict regulations set up offshore entities in countries with less stringent controls so they can continue to transfer weapons to questionable contexts.

    What further agreements or regulations are needed?

    A key area of focus in disarmament and arms control right now is the regulation of new and emerging technologies such as lethal autonomous weapons systems. Given the rapid development of new technologies, this focus on autonomy is entirely understandable.

    Guns, however, remain the primary weapon of choice in everyday violence, organised crime and gender-based violence. Despite their impact, they are subject to limited international regulation, such as the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. While this has helped states implement gun control legislation, a more systematic and rigorous approach is needed.

    Unfortunately, the prevailing view, which has spread from the USA to other parts of the world, is that people have a right to bear arms. To prevent human rights abuses and violations committed with guns, states must enact robust legislation on gun ownership and control, and ensure it is backed by strong criminal penalties.

    Get in touch with the Control Arms through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram page, and follow@controlarms on Twitter.
  • GLOBAL SECURITY: ‘NATO remains as relevant today as it was when it was established in 1949’

    JamieSheaCIVICUS discusses the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) summit with Jamie Shea, former NATO official and current Professor of Strategy and Security at the University of Exeter, UK and Senior Fellow for Peace, Security and Defence at the think tank Friends of Europe.

    NATO held its annual summit from 9 to 11 July. On the military alliance’s 75th anniversary, the leaders of its 32 member states gathered in Washington DC, where the treaty was first signed. Amid concerns about a possible second presidency for Donald Trump, who has suggested he won’t honour NATO’s cornerstone Article 5 on mutual defence, the agenda focused on maintaining unity, strengthening NATO’s European pillar and planning Ukraine’s integration.

    How relevant is NATO today?

    NATO is as relevant today as it was when it was founded in April 1949. It continues to play a vital role in ensuring the security of its members. Its ability to unite the USA and Canada with Europe around shared values and interests is vital.

    Europe continues to face significant threats from an expansionist and aggressive Russia, as evidenced by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. NATO provides essential deterrence and defence, particularly for those Central and Eastern European member states that have a history of subjugation under Czarist and Soviet regimes and are most directly threatened by Russia’s actions.

    NATO provides a standard of collective defence that individual member states could not achieve on their own. Smaller allies particularly value its consensus-based decision-making process and its political and military consultation mechanisms, which ensure that every member has a seat at the table and a voice in decisions. This inclusive approach to security represents a significant advance over Europe’s past security dynamics.

    How has NATO evolved over time?

    NATO started with 12 member states and has grown to 32, with Finland and Sweden joining in the last two years following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO shifted its focus to peacekeeping, with stabilisation missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo and Libya. It invoked Article 5 of its Charter – the collective defence clause – for the first time after the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001.

    It has also addressed new security challenges, including counterterrorism, cyber defence, energy supply and the protection of critical infrastructure and space assets. It has recognised climate change as a security issue and established global partnerships that extend beyond Europe to regions such as Asia-Pacific, the Gulf, Latin America and North Africa.

    More recently, however, deteriorating relations with Russia have led NATO to refocus on its core mission of collective defence. Supporting Ukraine in its resistance to Russian aggression has become a key priority. Given Russia’s continued aggression and its perception of NATO as an enemy, this focus is likely to dominate the alliance’s agenda for the next decade.

    How much space for civil society participation does NATO offer in its structures and processes?

    Addressing global challenges often requires the expertise of civil society organisations and think tanks that provide valuable scientific and technical analysis, insights and solutions.

    For example, in preparing for NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, we consulted civil society experts to help us understand Afghan history, culture and traditions. This aimed to ensure that NATO forces would engage effectively with Afghan society, working with rather than against it, and emphasise the protection of women and children.

    NATO has also worked with civil society to assess the impact of climate change and develop strategies for military responses to natural disasters and extreme weather events, and has established centres of excellence involving civil society to improve its understanding of issues such as cyberspace, disinformation, hybrid warfare and terrorism.

    What were the key issues on the agenda at this year’s summit?

    Assistance to Ukraine was the number one issue. NATO seeks to ensure a more consistent flow of advanced weapons and funding to help Ukraine counter the Russian offensive in the Donbass and near Kharkiv. Many allies announced further packages of assistance, including F16 aircraft, pilot training, Patriot anti-missile batteries, Leopard 2 tanks and 155mm artillery rounds. NATO will coordinate military supplies and train the Ukrainian army through a new Special Command based in Wiesbaden, Germany. This is expected to be operational by September. Additionally, NATO also announced that allies will maintain their current level of financial support by providing US$43 billion to Ukraine in 2025.

    The other major focus was the Asia-Pacific region. NATO leaders met with their counterparts from Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea to discuss increased cooperation on Ukraine, artificial intelligence, climate change, critical infrastructure protection, cybersecurity and proliferation. China was criticised for its role as a ‘decisive enabler’ of Russia’s war effort in Ukraine and for its rapid, non-transparent conventional and nuclear modernisation programme.

    What are the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO ?

    NATO has a vital interest in Ukraine’s membership, which would strengthen the defence of Eastern Europe, but there are no immediate prospects for accession. The allies have said that Ukraine still has work to do to meet NATO standards, particularly in areas such as anti-corruption and judicial reform. It won’t be easy for Ukraine to do this while it’s still at war with Russia.

    NATO is also unlikely to accept Ukraine as long as the war continues, as this would automatically draw member states into the conflict with Russia without the possibility of prior deterrence. But it’s gradually and progressively integrating it into its structures before taking a final decision on full membership, including the Article 5 security guarantee.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attended the summit and Ukraine was declared to be on an ‘irreversible’ path to NATO membership, with 23 allies and partners signing bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. NATO is also working to modernise Ukraine’s military structures and equipment to make its armed forces fully interoperable with NATO.

    How are relations between Europe and NATO?

    Relations between NATO and the European Union (EU) are now much smoother, especially as both are focusing on challenges on their immediate borders rather than on global issues. The EU has used the war in Ukraine to push ahead with its own defence cooperation, particularly in setting up the European Peace Facility to collectively buy ammunition and fund national arms transfers to Ukraine. It has also agreed a defence production strategy and a plan to boost industrial production of weapons, bringing critical defence supply chains and raw materials back to Europe.

    NATO and the EU are cooperating more closely on critical infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, military mobility and space, agreeing on a rational division of labour to avoid costly duplication.

    How would be the impact if Donald Trump’s returned to the US presidency?

    Trump’s re-election could pose significant challenges for NATO allies because of his unpredictability. One day he could propose cutting off aid to Ukraine and the next he could reject Putin’s peace proposals. Similarly, his views on NATO have fluctuated from being critical to claiming credit for ‘saving NATO’ by pushing Europeans to increase their defence spending.

    Trump has accused Europe of free riding on US power and financial generosity, which isn’t true. Europeans helped the USA after 9/11 by sending thousands of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and without Europe’s solidarity it would be much harder for the USA to put serious pressure on China. And while the USA is helping to defend Europe, it is also serving its own strategic interests. An isolated USA, with Russia dominating Europe and China dominating Asia, would no longer be a global power.

    European contributions to NATO and global security are now the highest in 30 years, with 23 out of 32 NATO allies meeting the two per cent of GDP defence spending target, up from five during the Trump administration. Any sensible US president would recognise that NATO is a good deal for the USA. When all budgets are counted, Europe has spent twice as much as the USA on aid to Ukraine and pays more to the United Nations and its agencies for international development and humanitarian aid.

    Dealing with Trump if he returns to the White House will require constant and careful diplomacy. But Republicans in Congress who remain pro-NATO, along with the US defence industry and military establishment, can play a crucial role in helping Europe persuade Trump that weakening European security or undermining NATO would ultimately damage the USA’s status and hand China and Russia a significant geopolitical victory.

    Get in touch with Friends of Europe through itswebsite orLinkedIn page, and follow@FriendsofEurope on Twitter. Get in touch with Jamie Shea throughLinkedIn.

    The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.
  • GLOBAL: ‘Only through adherence to humanitarian principles and the rule of law can we shift away from armed conflict’

    Neshan GunasekeraCIVICUS 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.

    ENSUREDEuropeanUnionLogo

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

    Mengistu AssefaCIVICUS 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.
  • Paren la guerra: Declaración de solidaridad con la población civil

    Nosotros, grupos de la sociedad civil de los cinco continentes del mundo que trabajamos juntos por un mundo justo, pacífico, sostenible y próspero, hacemos un llamado conjunto a una solución negociada para poner fin a la guerra en Ucrania lo antes posible. Esto debe incluir un cese inmediato de las hostilidades contra los civiles y la retirada de las fuerzas militares y el armamento rusos de Ucrania, junto con una declaración acordada por ambas partes y la provisión de garantías de seguridad por y para todas las partes.

    En un mundo que ya está asolado por múltiples crisis, como la pandemia de COVID-19 y la escalada del cambio climático, este conflicto está desgarrando comunidades ya frágiles y millones de personas enfrentan guerras, desplazamientos, pérdida de hogares y medios de subsistencia.

    Ya ha pasado un mes, pero cuanto más dure este conflicto, más devastador será para las personas que viven en Ucrania, Rusia y en todo el mundo. Debe ser detenido ahora.

    1) Detener la guerra

    El ataque a Ucrania por parte del ejército ruso y la guerra contra un país soberano marcan una violación inaceptable del derecho internacional. Pedimos el fin inmediato de la guerra en Ucrania, un alto el fuego y la retirada de las fuerzas rusas, y la eliminación gradual de todas las sanciones de acuerdo con un cronograma acordado. La devastación de muchas ciudades y la matanza de civiles inocentes y de la infraestructura civil no se pueden justificar.

    Hacemos un llamado a la intervención de terceras partes  para evitar una mayor escalada militar del conflicto y ayudar a facilitar las negociaciones de paz.

    Además, es inaceptable e insuficiente que hasta ahora solo un puñado de hombres haya estado involucrado en las negociaciones de paz.

    Hacemos un llamado para que las negociaciones de paz incluyan a la sociedad civil y representantes de aquellos que se ven directamente afectados, en particular las mujeres, especialmente de Ucrania y Rusia.

    2) Respetar los derechos humanos

    Nos solidarizamos con el pueblo de Ucrania. Los derechos de los civiles deben ser respetados, después de un mes de conflicto, los impactos humanitarios están provocando desplazamientos masivos de personas, pérdida de vidas y medios de subsistencia. Estamos muy preocupados de que esta grave violación del derecho internacional tenga un impacto extremadamente adverso en la seguridad y la democracia en Europa y el mundo.

    También hacemos un llamado al respeto de los derechos humanos en Rusia, muchos rusos se han puesto de pie para condenar la violencia y sus voces deben ser escuchadas. La protesta pacífica debe ser reconocida como una forma legítima de expresión.

    Pedimos que se respeten los derechos humanos y el estado de derecho.

    3) Detener el militarismo y la agresión en todo el mundo.

    Trágicamente, esta no es la primera vez que ocurren tales conflictos y guerras, ni mucho menos, por lo que resulta crucial reducir la militarización y el autoritarismo en todo el mundo.

    La situación actual en Ucrania surge en un contexto humano donde el conflicto armado, la violencia en todas sus formas, el autoritarismo, la corrupción y la represión indiscriminada afecta la vida de millones de personas en todo el mundo y viola los derechos humanos de jóvenes y adultos en países que incluyen: Myanmar, Yemen, Palestina, Siria, Sudán del Sur, República Centroafricana, Etiopía, , Colombia, Brasil, Nicaragua, Afganistán, Guatemala, El Salvador y otros.

    Todos los conflictos deben ser tratados con el mismo nivel de preocupación, todas las vidas afectadas por el conflicto tienen el mismo valor.

    Pedimos el mismo nivel de apoyo para poner fin a los conflictos y garantizar el apoyo financiero para las personas desplazadas y refugiadas de otros conflictos.

    4) Desplazar los fondos militares hacia un futuro justo y sostenible

    La guerra en Ucrania ya ha tenido un impacto devastador en la economía mundial, especialmente en el Sur Global. Es probable que haya grandes interrupciones y aumentos significativos en el costo de la energía y la producción, mayores costos de los alimentos y, al mismo tiempo, los presupuestos se redirigen hacia el gasto militar.

    El militarismo de Rusia está alimentado por combustibles fósiles y, por lo tanto, es fundamental detener la inversión en combustibles fósiles y cambiar de inmediato a formas de energía limpia. Es de vital importancia que reduzcamos el consumo de petróleo y gas y aumentemos rápidamente las inversiones en energías renovables para combatir la crisis climática que comienza ahora.

    Pedimos un compromiso específico en la ONU para reducir el gasto en conflictos militares y reinvertir este gasto en protección social y energía limpia.

    5) Establecer un fondo de paz mundial

    Hacemos un llamado a los estados miembros a recordar la visión fundacional de las Naciones Unidas y su Consejo de Seguridad, para cumplir con la razón principal por la que fueron creados: evitar cualquier tipo de guerra y el sufrimiento de la humanidad.

    La Agenda 2030 marca un camino hacia un mundo pacífico, justo, sostenible y próspero; y se deben tomar medidas y acciones mucho más ambiciosas para garantizar que se cumplan las metas y los objetivos.

    Hacemos un llamado a los estados miembros para que establezcan un fondo de paz global para fortalecer el papel de los mediadores internacionales y las fuerzas de mantenimiento de la paz. La ONU debe actuar.

    191 firmantes actuales (Firma esta declaración)
    Global

    • Action for Sustainable Development
    • CIVICUS
    • GCAP
    • SDG Watch Europe
    • SHERPA Institute
    • Vivat International
    • Academics Stand Against Poverty
    • Gaia U International, Global Ecovillage Network US
    • VIVAT International
    • International Movement of Catholic Students (IMCS) Pax Romana, Asia Pacific.
    • Asia and Pacific Alliance of YMCAs

    Asia

    • Farmers’ Voice (Krisoker Sor), Bangladesh
    • Bangladesh Institute of Human Rights(BIHR), Bangladesh
    • JusticeMakers Bangladesh, Bangladesh
    • Circular Economy Alliance India, India
    • Kethoseno Peseyie, India
    • CHIKKA FEDERATION OF INDIA, India
    • Independent Individual freelancer named Hitesh BHATT & MS JALPA PATEL-INDIA., India
    • Sikshasandhan, India
    • Sustainable Development Council, India
    • Association For Promotion Sustainable Development, India
    • Peace in Education, India
    • THE CATALYSTS CO, India
    • SOCIETY FOR ORPHAN, NEGLECTED AND YOUTHS (SONY), India
    • FAUDAR RURAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY FOR HARIJANS, India
    • GIRL UP CHIKKA, India
    • International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, Indonesia
    • Sustainable agriculture and environment, Iran
    • Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability(JYPS), Japan
    • UNISC International, Japan
    • Silambam Asia, Malaysia
    • World Yoga Association, Malaysia
    • World Silambam Association (WSA), Malaysia
    • Climate Change Working Group, Myanmar
    • COMMUNITY SUPPORT ASSOCIATION OF NEPAL, Nepal
    • Sheni legal Service and Research Center, Nepal
    • SATHI SAMUHA (Friends Group), Nepal
    • Youth Advocacy Nepal (YAN), Nepal
    • Restructuring Nepal, Nepal
    • Human Rights Focus Pakistan (HRFP), Pakistan
    • Haakro Welfare Association, Pakistan
    • SSpS, Philippines
    • Lanka Fundamental Rights Organization, Sri Lanka
    • Missionary Sisters Servants of the Holy Spirit, Viet Nam
    • AwazCDS, Pakistan
    • Korean Advocates for Global Health, Korea
    • National Campaign For Sustainable Development (NACASUD-Nepal), Nepal
    • Tarayana Foundation, Bhutan
    • General Secretary Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee, Pakistan
    • Think Centre Singapore, Singapore

    Europa

    • Missionsprokur St. Gabriel International, Austria
    • Greenskills, Austria
    • Mikel Díez Sarasola, España
    • Circular Initiatives Roadmap (CIR), Estonia
    • Pekka Kuusi Ecofoundation, Finland
    • World Family Organization, France
    • ONG (Nouveau Point de vue ), France outre-mer
    • Association for Farmers Rights Defense, AFRD, Georgia
    • Global Ecovillage Network, Germany
    • Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
    • IAHV, Germany
    • Patrick Paul Walsh, Ireland
    • International Presentation Association, Ireland
    • DMDA, Ireland
    • Jan Martin Bang, Norway
    • Norwegian Forum for Development and Environment, Norway
    • Moray Carshare, Scotland
    • Salisbury centre Edinburgh, Scotland UK
    • Drustvo Soncni gric, Slovenija
    • Alfonso Flaquer, Spain
    • Centro de Transformacion del Conflicto Humano, Spain
    • Findhorn Foundation Fellows, Sweden
    • Justice for Prosperity Foundation, The Netherlands
    • British Autism Advocates, U.K.
    • Integral City Meshworks Inc., UK
    • BPWUK, Uk
    • Findhorn Fellows, UK
    • Emerson College, Forest Row, East Sussex, UK., UK
    • Barnaby Green, United Kingdom
    • Dr. Colin Thomas Barnes, United Kingdom
    • Development Alternatives, United Kingdom
    • NAWO and the Judith Trust, United Kingdom
    • Victor S Ient, United Kingdom
    • Findhorn Foundation & Park Ecovillage Trust, United Kingdom
    • InnerLinks, United Kingdom
    • Alan Watson Featherstone, United Kingdom
    • Open Circle Consulting Ltd, United Kingdom
    • Poems for Parliament, United Kingdom
    • Northern Ireland Women’s European Platform, United Kingdom
    • Ecologia Youth Trust, United Kingdom
    • Soroptimist International, United Kingdom
    • Commonwealth Medical Trust, United Kingdom
    • Widows for Peace through Democracy (WPD), United Kingdom
    • SecurityWomen, United Kingdom

    Oriente medio y norte de África

    • Gatef, Egypt
    • Junior enterprise, Tunisia

    Oceanía

    • Plowright Studios, Australia
    • Aaron Owen, Australia
    • PIANGO, Fiji
    • Deepti Karan Weiss, Fiji
    • The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, New Zealand
    • GENOA, Oceania and Asia

    África subsahariana

    • RESEAU SOS FEMMES EN DETRESSE – SOS FED, BURUNDI
    • YUNIBF (Youth United for a Brighter Future), Cameroon
    • Action pour le Développement (A4D), Cameroun
    • Centre Oecuménique pour la Promotion du Monde Rural, Congo-Kinshasa
    • AGIR POUR LA SÉCURITÉ ET LA SOUVERAINETÉ ALIMENTAIRE ASSA, Congo-Kinshasa( RDCONGO)
    • Save the Climat, Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Locate software, Ethiopia
    • Michael Girimay Gebremedhine, Ethiopia
    • New English private school, Ethiopia
    • Taminnova, Ethiopian
    • Apostolic Ministerial International Network, Ghana
    • Youth Harvest Foundation Ghana, Ghana
    • Abundant Grace Female Foundation, Ghana
    • Elizka Relief Foundation, Ghana
    • Parlement des Jeunes Leaders de la Société Civile Guinéenne, Guinée
    • BASO, Kenya
    • The Social Justice Centers Working Group, Kenya
    • New Generation Outreach, Kenya
    • Thomas Kaydor,  Jr., LIBERIA
    • Innovations for change, Malawi
    • Action for Environmental Sustainability, Malawi
    • Peoples Federation for National Peace and Development (PEFENAP), Malawi
    • Association du Développement et de la Promotion de Droits de l’Homme, Mauritanie
    • Dieumax Ventures, Nigeria
    • Leadership Watch, Nigeria
    • Initiative For Peace And Stability ( IPAS), Nigeria
    • HETAVED SKILLS ACADEMY AND NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, Nigeria
    • Environment and Development Advocates (EDA), Nigeria
    • ASSOCIATION COMMUNAUTAIRE POUR LE BIEN ETRE ET LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE /ACOBEPE ONGD, REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO
    • Nouveaux Droits de l’homme Congo Brazzaville, République du Congo
    • GCAP-SENGAL, Senegal
    • EARTH REGENERATIVE PROJECT SIERRA LEONE-NGO, SIERRA LEONE
    • Volunteers Involving Organisations Network, Sierra Leone
    • Mahawa Foundation, Sierra Leone
    • Waste For Change NPC, South Africa
    • Kadesh International, South Africa
    • African Monitor Trust, South Africa
    • Community Health Organization(CH), Tanzania
    • VEILLE CITOYENNE TOGO, TOGO
    • Espace Vie et Action-Togo (EVA-T), Togo
    • Sugur Development Agency (SDA), Uganda
    • Vision Centre Africa, Uganda
    • Human Nature Projets Uganda, Uganda
    • Step Up Youth Initiative, Uganda
    • Development Education Community Project, Zambia

    Américas

    • AidWatch Canada, Canada
    • Vision GRAM-International, Canada and  D R Congo
    • Gloria Rodríguez, Colombia
    • Movimiento Nacional Cimarrón, Colombia
    • Alianza ONG, Dominican Republic
    • Christian Acosta, Ecuador
    • CECADE, El Salvador
    • Union des Amis Socio Culturels d’Action en Developpement (UNASCAD), Haiti
    • Jamaica Climate Change Youth Council, Jamaica
    • Uso Inteligente ASV AC, México
    • MY World México, México
    • Humberto Soto, México
    • Coordinadora por los Derechos de la Infancia y la Adolescencia de Paraguay, Paraguay
    • Consorcio Agroecológico Peruano, Perú
    • Raise Your Voice Saint Lucia Inc, Saint Lucia
    • UNANIMA International, United States
    • Congregation of the Mission, United States
    • World Union for Progressive Judaism, United States
    • Transdiaspora Network, United States
    • Sustainably Wise, United States
    • Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights, United States
    • The GOOD Group, United States
    • Let There Be Light International, United States
    • ALICIA STAMMER, United States
    • Andrea Ruiz, United States
    • TRIPPINZ CARE INC, United States
    • Pleading for the Widows International Foundation, United States
    • Missionary Oblates of Immaculate, United States
    • Oblate Ecological Initiative, United States
    • United Nations Association of the National Capital Area, United States
    • New Future Foundation, United States
    • World Roma Federation, US
    • Kosmos Journal; Unity Earth, USA
    • NGO Committee on Sustainable Development-NY, USA
    • Volunteer Groups Alliance, USA
    • Findhorn Foundation, USA
    • TAP Network, USA
    • Global Choices, USA/ UK
    • REDHNNA, Venezuela
    • OMEP World Organization for Early Childhood Education, Argentina
    • Fundación para la Democracia Internacional, Argentina
    • Fundacion para Estudio e investigacion de la Mujer, Argentina
    • Reaccion Climatica, Bolivia
    • Viviane Weingärtner, Brazil
  • RUSSIA: 'Any tactic that protesters use will likely be banned and declared a crime'

    Nelya RakhimovaCIVICUS speaks about anti-war protests and the growing restrictions on civic space in Russia with Nelya Rakhimova, coordinator of the Coalition for Sustainable Development of Russia (CSDR).

    CSDR is a coalition that advocates for and monitors the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Russia. Established in 2020, it includes Russian civil society organisations (CSOs), research institutions, experts and activists. CSDR participates in international and domestic processes, creates awareness of SDGs among the public and mobilises for action on SDGs.

    How big are the anti-war protests in Russia, and how has the government reacted to them?

    Anti-war protests are currently happening in major cities throughout Russia. Protesters are just demanding peace, but the government’s reaction has been repressive. Of course, bigger changes are needed, but for now the focus of protesters is on ending the war. They typically go out to the streets with placards that read ‘no to war’ and are immediately arrested. Almost all cities are flooded with police monitoring the situation. Innocent people have been tortured simply because they have voiced concerns regarding the ‘military operation’, as the government calls it. 

    Those out there protesting are ordinary citizens, activists and members of CSOs.Although there are no statistics showing the number of people participating in protests and their composition, it seems that many protesters are young people.

    This makes sense, because what makes it somewhat easier for young people to stand against the war and participate in protests is that most of them do not have family responsibilities and are therefore free to act independently. Other people may wish to participate in the protests but because they have families, they feel restricted.

    Various platforms have been used to instil fear. People risk not only being arrested but also losing their jobs. But of course the same could be said about students, as there are already cases of students being expelled from universities because of their participation in the protests. Pressure comes not only from the government but also from universities and employers. These issues have been abundantly covered in a comprehensive report recently published by the Russian independent human rights media project OVD-Info.

    Do you think repression is deterring people from protesting in larger numbers?

    Indeed, although there have been protests all over the place, the number of people protesting is not that big. Many people who are against the so-called ‘military operation’ are scared to take part in protests because they have seen how police treat protesters. In addition, many people choose not to protest because they believe it won’t make a difference.

    A look back at previous protests and in Russia and the government’s reaction to them makes it clear why many people are reluctant to participate in the anti-war movement. People are aware of the gruesome acts perpetrated in prisons and police stations. Civic freedoms are so restricted that people are not able to freely express themselves. Having your own views can get you into trouble. We have seen too many human rights violations over the past weeks and we are afraid the situation will only get worse due to the reduced international visibility of Russia’s internal situation.

    CSOs are already starting to feel the pressure, as most people prefer to disassociate themselves from them and they are also trying to protect people who associate with them. At the beginning people were signing petitions against the war but now CSOs are removing people’s names because they don’t want to put them in danger’s way.

    It is currently very difficult to leave Russia, so people are adopting safety measures to protect themselves while staying. But there are still brave people and organisations that are determined to keep advocating for peace and are not deterred by the ongoing human rights violations.

    What is CSDR and what does it do?

    CSDR is a civil society coalition working together so that the SDGs are achieved in Russia by 2030. We work with civil society experts on each SDG to push forward this agenda.

    The coalition was established in 2020 because at the time the government of Russia was delivering its report on SDG implementation, and we decided we needed to have an alternative report that included the perspective of civil society. We produced a shadow report that was supported by 160 CSOs and 200 individual activists. It was quite successful and was recognised by the German Organisation for International Cooperation and the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

    We then continued to work on advocacy for SDG implementation. Last year we hosted a conference in Moscow to which we invited representatives of the ministries of foreign affairs and economic development and the special representative of the president on the SDGs. We tried to stay in touch to deliver our messages on SGD-related issues. We had plans to continue this work but right now we have no idea how we will be able to do so.

    What are the main challenges you currently face in your work?

    The most challenging thing about organising in Russia is that the law is constantly being changed and restrictions are increasingly being tightened. Right now for instance we are talking to our donors, who are mainly German foundations, because it is not even clear how we are going to be able to receive funds to produce our publications and convene events.

    Several new censorship laws have been put in place over the past couple of weeks, and most people have decided to comply with them. But it is not easy to organise in such an environment. Any tactic that protesters and independent CSOs use today will likely be banned by law over the following days and declared a crime.

    As a coalition we face a similar situation. We’ve tried to release a statement regarding the current events and have had to review it over and over due to the changing laws. We are being very careful with our wording and social media posts because we do not want to put our members in danger.

    Censorship has forced people to go back to traditional methods of expression, organising and protesting. Instead of using social media as a tool to mobilise, more people are now using printed material such as flyers and placards to voice their opinions. Those who continue to be active on social media often resort to the method of using a different name on each platform and deleting all conversations that could lead to them getting arrested. However, no method of mobilising makes people immune to arrest, as the growing numbers of people arrested attest to.

    How much change do you think could come out of the protests?

    I want to believe that the situation can and will change. And I think if there are massive protests the situation might really change. But it will take time for that to happen.

    Unfortunately, there are large numbers of people who continue to support the Russian government. This is the result of the intensive internal propaganda the government has disseminated for years. People have been brainwashed and are convinced that what Russia is doing is for the good of both Russia and Ukraine. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to have massive protests.

    Russian society is deeply divided; families are split and even Ukrainian families in Russia are being torn apart. A part of the population understands what is currently happening, but many people don’t. And I don’t think this is something protests could change. Propaganda has deep roots in Russian society, and fear is doing the rest: among those who don’t believe the propaganda, many are too scared to voice their opinions.

    How can the international community best help Russian CSOs and activists?

    The international community can support Russian civil society by sharing accurate information about what is happening in the country. A majority of CSOs and activists from neighbouring countries as well as international CSOs are focused on trying to help Ukrainian people, both refugees and those left in Ukraine. This is completely understandable, but I think they shouldn’t forget the people in Russia who continue to advocate for peace and human rights. The least they can do is shine the spotlight on the situation in their national and international media outlets so people abroad are aware of what is going on and are able to offer their help.

    Additionally, they should put pressure on the Russian government through various international instruments, including the SDGs. Civil society from around the world could collectively release statements that highlight the situation and note the changes they would like to see. Maintaining solidarity in these times is also very important because it helps people working on the ground.

    Last but not least, CSOs and activists need financial assistance. Those wishing to help protesters by providing funding should get in touch with the organisations leading the anti-war movement and offer their help. And of course, if Russian activists decide to leave the country due to political pressure, they also need support from international colleagues, as no one should be left behind.

    Civic space in Russiais rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. Russia is currently on theCIVICUS Monitor Watch List, which identifies countries in which a severe and abrupt deterioration in the quality of civic space is taking place.
    Get in touch with CSDR through itswebsite. 
  • RUSSIA: ‘The shutdown of media sources threatens to create information vacuum for Russians’

    Natalia MalyshevaCIVICUS speaks about anti-war protests in Russia and the government’s violations of digital rights with Natalia Malysheva, co-founder and press secretary of Roskomsvoboda.

    Roskomsvoboda is a civil society organisation (CSO) that works to defend people’s digital rights. Established in 2012, it promotes the freedom of information and advocates against censorship. It is currently working to ensure people receive accurate information about the war and offering assistance to those who have been detained.

    How significant are the ongoing anti-war protests in Russia?

    The protests are small. In the first days of the so-called ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, many people came out to take part in spontaneous rallies for peace in all major cities of Russia. Human rights CSOs have reported that more than 15,000 people have been detained so far for speaking out against the war. But now protests typically consist of small groups of people in multiple locations across the country.

    The new law that prohibits and criminalises the dissemination of ‘fake news’ about the Russian military action and the expression of support for ‘anti-Russian sanctions’ has had a strong impact on how people organise, and on whether they go out to protest, because it has installed fear throughout society.

    People have been arrested merely for using the words ‘war’ and ‘peace’ in the context of protests, and even for using asterisks instead of letters on their signs – because the government knows that if you protest with a blank sign or a sign full of asterisks, what you are trying to say is ‘no to war’. People who advocate against the war on social media are also often at risk of being arrested.

    There are fewer and fewer people who are willing to take part in an uncoordinated rally and get arrested for several days, because most of them have families and jobs they wish to protect. Many people who fear for their lives are leaving the country for their safety. Others simply do not see any prospects in a continuing struggle. Moving forward, we shouldn’t expect mass protests to arise in Russia.

    Do you think protests can make any difference?

    Right now it is clear that the Russian government does not intend to have a dialogue with the part of society that does not support its so-called ‘military operation’ in Ukraine. This is unfortunately a relatively small segment of society and its demands are overlooked.

    Although people continue to go out to protests and some get arrested in the process, in my opinion this will not change the course of the events that are currently taking place. The authorities won’t listen to protesters. Protesting will perhaps start making more sense when – or if – most Russians begin to understand what is really happening.

    What is Roskomsvoboda focusing on?

    Roskomsvoboda is a CSO that supports open self-regulatory networks and the protection of digital rights of internet users. It seeks to counter online censorship and expand the opportunities brought by digital technologies.

    For 10 years, Roskomsvoboda has constantly monitored the activities of government agencies. We publish a register of blocked sites and raise awareness of online abuse, leakages of personal data and the persecution of citizens for their social media statements. We conduct extensive public campaigns and events aimed at informing citizens about the violation of their digital rights, initiating public discussion and bringing people together so they can fight for their rights. Our lawyers defend those who are prosecuted for their online statements or activities, represent the interests of users and site owners in court and participate in the development of proposals for changing legislation.

    In the past few days, against the backdrop of an information war and a growing social crisis, we have focused more on helping people get reliable information about what is happening. We have published pieces about new laws that have been adopted to introduce censorship and analysed how they will affect people and their right to speak up. Our lawyers continue to provide targeted legal assistance to those who are being prosecuted for speaking out online, defending people in courts.

    The closure of some news outlets and social media platforms is affecting the kind of information people receive. State media outlets provide information that only reflects events from the government’s perspective and disseminate a lot of propaganda. The shutdown of leading media sources threatens to create an information vacuum for Russians, which won’t contribute to the goal of achieving peace.

    Restrictions on access to information and censorship have already significantly reduced people’s ability to protest. Even publishing an online call for a peace rally can result in criminal punishment.

    We recently issued a statement calling on the world’s leading internet and IT companies and initiatives not to indiscriminately impose mass sanctions and not to punish ordinary people in Russia, many of whom are already in a vulnerable position. We have translated our appeal into several languages and are asking everyone to help disseminate it.

    What are the dangers of disinformation in the context of the current crisis?

    The biggest risk of disinformation is that of disconnecting Russia from the global information space.

    Russian authorities have blocked the world’s largest media outlets and social media. Many western companies have stopped operating in Russia, making it even more closed for international viewers. This prevents people from getting the truth about what is happening; it also destroys the businesses and careers of many people who have worked in partnership with Western countries for many years.

    The current closure of businesses has left many people without vital resources. People are not only affected by oppression from the Russian government but must also deal with the potential loss of their jobs and sources of income. With such actions, western countries only risk Russia shutting down completely from the outside world, paving the way for the rise of a ‘sovereign internet’ – an internet thoroughly controlled by the government.

    How can the international community best support Russian civil society?

    The international community can help by bringing our message to the widest possible audience. On behalf of Russian internet users, Roskomsvoboda urges technology companies located in the jurisdictions of the USA, the European Union and other countries not to massively disable the accounts of Russian users. They should not restrict their access to information and means of communication.

    Digital discrimination based on nationality would reduce the ability of Russians to gain access to reliable information, as well as to conduct honest work, study and research activities. So we ask you to please distribute our statement far and wide.

    We also started a petition asking the world’s virtual private network (VPN) services to help ensure that Russian users have free access to their services during these difficult times. This is necessary to protect users’ basic rights to privacy, the secrecy of communication and their ability to receive and disseminate information freely. Access to information is a basic human right enshrined in various international agreements. In critical situations, it is more important than ever.

    Civic space in Russiais rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. Russia is currently on theCIVICUS Monitor Watch List, which identifies countries in which a severe and abrupt deterioration in the quality of civic space is taking place.
    Get in touch with Roskomsvoboda through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@RuBlackListNET on Twitter.
  • RUSSIA: ‘These protests are key to the preservation of Russian civil society’

    Maria KuznetsovaCIVICUS speaks about the ongoing anti-war protests in Russia and the repressive government response with OVD-Info’s spokesperson Maria Kuznetsova.

    OVD-Info is an independent civil society organisation (CSO) that aims to promote and protect human rights – and specifically the freedom of peaceful assembly – in Russia. It monitors protests and their repression and assists detained protesters through legal aid, online consultations, and bringing them food and water while in detention.

    How big are the ongoing anti-war protests in Russia?

    The protests were massive in the first two weeks of the war – we recorded protest-related arrests in at least 159 cities. Of course, the biggest protests were those taking place in major developed cities, basically Moscow and St. Petersburg.

    People came out against the war for moral reasons, because they could not look at the horror of what was happening in Ukraine and not react: mass bombings, killings of civilians, violence.

    Protesters are mostly people under 40 years old – because they are the ones who, thanks to the internet, get an accurate picture of what is happening, in contrast to the narrative that is pushed by censored state TV. Their demands to end the war are simultaneously, of course, demands to overthrow Putin. Because one is impossible without the other.

    My opinion is that due to the deteriorating economic situation, another – quite different – wave of protests may be expected soon. This may start among the poorer sections of the population who have lost income and jobs, and among doctors and patients, who are already experiencing the consequences of shortages of life-saving medicines due to sanctions.

    Do you think repression has dissuaded people from protesting in bigger numbers?

    At the height of the protests, on 5 March, more than 5,500 people were detained in one day. Since the beginning of the war, nearly 15,000 people have been detained at anti-war protests. The police are very harshly suppressing the protests – for example, on Sunday 20 March in Moscow, virtually all protesters were detained, and many of them were arrested for five to 30 days.

    In addition, 39 criminal cases have already been opened due to statements and protests against the war; some of the defendants are already in jail. All of this scares away potential protesters. They understand that they can get a prison sentence even for participating in a peaceful rally, and it is obvious that fewer people are coming out now. However, protest continues under different forms: people sign open letters, write on social media, quit their jobs. We have even seen several high-profile dismissals of journalists and editors from federal media channels.

    Those who still venture out to protest are being assisted by several human rights organisations, including OVD-Info. We send our lawyers to police stations where protesters are held. When there are not enough lawyers or we do not have a lawyer in a given city, we provide online consultations. We accompany the defendants to court. In addition, there is an extensive network of volunteers who also come to police stations to bring detainees water and food so that they do not go hungry all night after they are detained.

    Do you think the protests will lead to meaningful change?

    I don’t think there is a chance that these protests will influence the politics of the current regime, and as a human rights project, rather than a political one, OVD-Info is not in a position to assess the prospects for regime change. What we know for sure is that the only possible path to peace in Europe is having a free Russia that protects human rights. We do not know when our country will turn that way.

    Still, these protests are key to the preservation and future development of Russian civil society. By taking part in them, those who oppose the war will gain invaluable self-organisation skills and acquire the moral right to play a prominent role when the time comes to build a new Russia.

    How have media restrictions imposed by the government affected the protests, and civil society work more generally?

    In my opinion, what we are witnessing in Russia is the establishment of military censorship. Even calling the events in Ukraine a war is prohibited – this is punishable by an administrative fine, and in case of repeated violations it becomes a criminal case, which can result in up to five years in prison. A new crime has been included in the Criminal Code: that of public disseminating knowingly false information about the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. You can get up to 15 years in prison if you’re accused of doing that.

    The websites of almost all independent organisations have been blocked in Russia since the beginning of the war. Due to anti-war remarks, its founders were forced to shut down Echo of Moscow, a radio station. The online media Znak.com also closed due to pressures. Independent TV channel Dozhd left Russia and temporarily interrupted its broadcasts, which were viewed by millions. Almost all independent media outlets were forced to leave Russia. In addition, the government blocked Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, because they realised they were unable to effectively impose censorship on social media.

    At the moment, military censorship makes it tough to continue any anti-war and independent civilian activity, because any statement or protest can result in a prison term. But people continue to protest regardless, and many celebrities are speaking out publicly. We have seen employees of propaganda channels getting fired, which suggests that people are so enraged by what is happening that they are willing to fight back despite the risks.

    How have the sanctions affected your work?

    I don’t have a clear answer just yet. It seems to me that so far sanctions have not affected our work so much, but the situation can always quickly deteriorate. In fact, OVD-Info has closed down all Russian donations, while international donations continue to be safe. 

    For the time being, it is the shutdown of many social media platforms that has made our work much more complex: it is increasingly difficult for us to convey information to people, educate them on legal issues and provide them with legal assistance. It will be especially difficult for us if Telegram is blocked in Russia, because it is now our primary platform for communicating with detainees.

    How can the international community help independent CSOs and human rights activists in Russia?

    I think the international community should be more careful with sanctions, which should be targeted. I think that the idea of collective responsibility is wrong – in Russia, it is a concept reminiscent of Stalin’s mass deportations of whole peoples, such as the Crimean Tatars, to pay for some individuals’ cooperation with the Third Reich.

    From a pragmatic rather than an ethical point of view, it must be noted that many sanctions that have been imposed are having negative side effects – they are harming the most progressive part of society that opposes the war, preventing it from receiving information and obstructing the work of the last independent media. For example, Mailchimp – a USA-based platform and email marketing service that is used to create and distribute email marketing campaigns – has blocked all its clients from Russia.

    It is also essential to understand that the Russians and Belarusians that are now leaving their countries and arriving in Turkey, Georgia, Armenia and other parts of Europe are mostly opposition activists and independent journalists who face jail time in their homeland. But because they are Russians and Belarusians, they are facing massive discrimination. However, these activists and journalists are not responsible for their government’s actions – they are in fact the only hope that their countries will change, so it is essential to help them instead of discriminating against them as if they were the aggressors’. It is necessary to understand that not all Russians and Belarusians support the war in Ukraine.

    Civic space in Russiais rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. Russia is currently on theCIVICUS Monitor Watch List, which identifies countries in which a severe and abrupt deterioration in the quality of civic space is taking place.
    Get in touch with OVD-Info through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@ovdinfo on Twitter.

     
  • Stop the war in Ukraine: Global solidarity statement

    We, civil society groups from the five continents of the world working together for a just, peaceful, sustainable and prosperous world, jointly call for a negotiated solution to end the war in Ukraine as promptly and swiftly as possible. This must include an immediate cessation of hostilities against civilians and the removal of Russian military forces and weaponry from Ukraine, coupled with an agreed statement and provision of security assurances by and for all parties.

    In a world that is already wracked by multiple crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and escalating climate change, this conflict is tearing through already fragile communities and millions of individuals face war, displacement, loss of homes and livelihoods. 

    A month has already passed but the longer this conflict lasts the more devastating it is likely to be for the people living in Ukraine, Russia, and all over the world. It must be stopped now.

    1) Stop the war

    The attack on Ukraine by the Russian army and the invasion of a sovereign country marks an unacceptable breach of international law. We call for an immediate end to the war in Ukraine, a ceasefire and a withdrawal of Russian forces, and the phased removal of all sanctions according to an agreed timeline.  The devastation of many cities and the killing of innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure cannot be justified. 

    We call on third parties to prevent a further military escalation of the conflict and help in facilitating peace negotiations. 

    Furthermore, it is unacceptable and insufficient that so far only a handful of men have been involved in the peace negotiations. 

    We call for the peace negotiations to include civil society and representatives of those who are directly affected, particularly women, especially from Ukraine and Russia.

    2) Respect international human rights

    We stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. The rights of civilians must be respected, after one month of conflict, the humanitarian impacts are leading to massive displacement of people, loss of lives and livelihoods. We are very concerned that this grave violation of international law will have an extremely adverse impact on security and democracy in Europe and the World.  

    We also call for respect for human rights in Russia, many Russian people have stood up to condemn violence and their voices must be heard. Peaceful protest must be recognised as a legitimate form of expression.

    We call for human rights and the rule of law to be respected.

    3) Stop militarism and aggression around the world

    Tragically, this is not the first time that such conflicts and wars have occurred, far from it, it is crucial to reduce militarization and authoritarianism all around the world.

    The current situation in Ukraine comes in a human context where armed conflict, violence in all its forms, authoritarianism, corruption and indiscriminate repression affects the lives of millions of people around the globe and violates the human rights of people young and old in countries including: Myanmar, Yemen, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Colombia, Brazil, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and others. 

    All conflicts must be treated with the same level of concern, all lives affected by conflict are of equal value. 

    We call for the same level of support to end conflicts and ensure financial support for displaced peoples and refugees from other conflicts.

    4) Shift military funds to a just and sustainable future

    The war in Ukraine has already had a devastating impact on the world economy, especially on the Global South. There are likely to be major disruptions and significant increases in the cost of energy and production, increased food costs and at the same time budgets are being re-directed towards military spending.

    The militarism of Russia is fueled by fossil fuels and it is therefore critical to stop investment in fossil fuels and shift immediately to clean forms of energy. It is crucially important that we reduce oil and gas consumption and rapidly upscale investments in renewables in order to combat the climate crisis beginning now.

    We call for a specific commitment at the UN to reduce spending on military conflicts and to re-invest this spending on social protection and clean energy. 

    5) Establish a global peace fund

    We call on member states to remember the founding vision of the United Nations and its Security Council, to deliver on the main reason it was created: to avoid any kind of war and the suffering of human kind. 

    The 2030 Agenda sets out a path towards a peaceful, just, sustainable and prosperous world; and much more ambitious steps and actions must be undertaken to ensure that the targets and goals are met.

    We call on member states to establish a global peace fund to strengthen the role of international mediators and peace-keepers, the UN must act!

    191 current signatories (sign the statement)
    Global

    • Action for Sustainable Development
    • CIVICUS
    • GCAP
    • SDG Watch Europe
    • SHERPA Institute
    • Vivat International
    • Academics Stand Against Poverty
    • Gaia U International, Global Ecovillage Network US
    • VIVAT International
    • International Movement of Catholic Students (IMCS) Pax Romana, Asia Pacific.
    • Asia and Pacific Alliance of YMCAs

    Asia

    • Farmers’ Voice (Krisoker Sor), Bangladesh
    • Bangladesh Institute of Human Rights(BIHR), Bangladesh
    • JusticeMakers Bangladesh, Bangladesh
    • Circular Economy Alliance India, India
    • Kethoseno Peseyie, India
    • CHIKKA FEDERATION OF INDIA, India
    • Independent Individual freelancer named Hitesh BHATT & MS JALPA PATEL-INDIA., India
    • Sikshasandhan, India
    • Sustainable Development Council, India
    • Association For Promotion Sustainable Development, India
    • Peace in Education, India
    • THE CATALYSTS CO, India
    • SOCIETY FOR ORPHAN, NEGLECTED AND YOUTHS (SONY), India
    • FAUDAR RURAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY FOR HARIJANS, India
    • GIRL UP CHIKKA, India
    • International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, Indonesia
    • Sustainable agriculture and environment, Iran
    • Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability(JYPS), Japan
    • UNISC International, Japan
    • Silambam Asia, Malaysia
    • World Yoga Association, Malaysia
    • World Silambam Association (WSA), Malaysia
    • Climate Change Working Group, Myanmar
    • COMMUNITY SUPPORT ASSOCIATION OF NEPAL, Nepal
    • Sheni legal Service and Research Center, Nepal
    • SATHI SAMUHA (Friends Group), Nepal
    • Youth Advocacy Nepal (YAN), Nepal
    • Restructuring Nepal, Nepal
    • Human Rights Focus Pakistan (HRFP), Pakistan
    • Haakro Welfare Association, Pakistan
    • SSpS, Philippines
    • Lanka Fundamental Rights Organization, Sri Lanka
    • Missionary Sisters Servants of the Holy Spirit, Viet Nam
    • AwazCDS, Pakistan
    • Korean Advocates for Global Health, Korea
    • National Campaign For Sustainable Development (NACASUD-Nepal), Nepal
    • Tarayana Foundation, Bhutan
    • General Secretary Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee, Pakistan
    • Think Centre Singapore, Singapore

    Europe

    • Missionsprokur St. Gabriel International, Austria
    • Greenskills, Austria
    • Mikel Díez Sarasola, España
    • Circular Initiatives Roadmap (CIR), Estonia
    • Pekka Kuusi Ecofoundation, Finland
    • World Family Organization, France
    • ONG (Nouveau Point de vue ), France outre-mer
    • Association for Farmers Rights Defense, AFRD, Georgia
    • Global Ecovillage Network, Germany
    • Forum on Environment and Development, Germany
    • IAHV, Germany
    • Patrick Paul Walsh, Ireland
    • International Presentation Association, Ireland
    • DMDA, Ireland
    • Jan Martin Bang, Norway
    • Norwegian Forum for Development and Environment, Norway
    • Moray Carshare, Scotland
    • Salisbury centre Edinburgh, Scotland UK
    • Drustvo Soncni gric, Slovenija
    • Alfonso Flaquer, Spain
    • Centro de Transformacion del Conflicto Humano, Spain
    • Findhorn Foundation Fellows, Sweden
    • Justice for Prosperity Foundation, The Netherlands
    • British Autism Advocates, U.K.
    • Integral City Meshworks Inc., UK
    • BPWUK, Uk
    • Findhorn Fellows, UK
    • Emerson College, Forest Row, East Sussex, UK., UK
    • Barnaby Green, United Kingdom
    • Dr. Colin Thomas Barnes, United Kingdom
    • Development Alternatives, United Kingdom
    • NAWO and the Judith Trust, United Kingdom
    • Victor S Ient, United Kingdom
    • Findhorn Foundation & Park Ecovillage Trust, United Kingdom
    • InnerLinks, United Kingdom
    • Alan Watson Featherstone, United Kingdom
    • Open Circle Consulting Ltd, United Kingdom
    • Poems for Parliament, United Kingdom
    • Northern Ireland Women’s European Platform, United Kingdom
    • Ecologia Youth Trust, United Kingdom
    • Soroptimist International, United Kingdom
    • Commonwealth Medical Trust, United Kingdom
    • Widows for Peace through Democracy (WPD), United Kingdom
    • SecurityWomen, United Kingdom

    Middle East and Northern Africa

    • Gatef, Egypt
    • Junior enterprise, Tunisia

    Pacific

    • Plowright Studios, Australia
    • Aaron Owen, Australia
    • PIANGO, Fiji
    • Deepti Karan Weiss, Fiji
    • The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, New Zealand
    • GENOA, Oceania and Asia

    Sub-Saharan Africa

    • RESEAU SOS FEMMES EN DETRESSE – SOS FED, BURUNDI
    • YUNIBF (Youth United for a Brighter Future), Cameroon
    • Action pour le Développement (A4D), Cameroun
    • Centre Oecuménique pour la Promotion du Monde Rural, Congo-Kinshasa
    • AGIR POUR LA SÉCURITÉ ET LA SOUVERAINETÉ ALIMENTAIRE ASSA, Congo-Kinshasa( RDCONGO)
    • Save the Climat, Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Locate software, Ethiopia
    • Michael Girimay Gebremedhine, Ethiopia
    • New English private school, Ethiopia
    • Taminnova, Ethiopian
    • Apostolic Ministerial International Network, Ghana
    • Youth Harvest Foundation Ghana, Ghana
    • Abundant Grace Female Foundation, Ghana
    • Elizka Relief Foundation, Ghana
    • Parlement des Jeunes Leaders de la Société Civile Guinéenne, Guinée
    • BASO, Kenya
    • The Social Justice Centers Working Group, Kenya
    • New Generation Outreach, Kenya
    • Thomas Kaydor,  Jr., LIBERIA
    • Innovations for change, Malawi
    • Action for Environmental Sustainability, Malawi
    • Peoples Federation for National Peace and Development (PEFENAP), Malawi
    • Association du Développement et de la Promotion de Droits de l’Homme, Mauritanie
    • Dieumax Ventures, Nigeria
    • Leadership Watch, Nigeria
    • Initiative For Peace And Stability ( IPAS), Nigeria
    • HETAVED SKILLS ACADEMY AND NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, Nigeria
    • Environment and Development Advocates (EDA), Nigeria
    • ASSOCIATION COMMUNAUTAIRE POUR LE BIEN ETRE ET LA PROTECTION ENVIRONNEMENTALE /ACOBEPE ONGD, REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO
    • Nouveaux Droits de l’homme Congo Brazzaville, République du Congo
    • GCAP-SENGAL, Senegal
    • EARTH REGENERATIVE PROJECT SIERRA LEONE-NGO, SIERRA LEONE
    • Volunteers Involving Organisations Network, Sierra Leone
    • Mahawa Foundation, Sierra Leone
    • Waste For Change NPC, South Africa
    • Kadesh International, South Africa
    • African Monitor Trust, South Africa
    • Community Health Organization(CH), Tanzania
    • VEILLE CITOYENNE TOGO, TOGO
    • Espace Vie et Action-Togo (EVA-T), Togo
    • Sugur Development Agency (SDA), Uganda
    • Vision Centre Africa, Uganda
    • Human Nature Projets Uganda, Uganda
    • Step Up Youth Initiative, Uganda
    • Development Education Community Project, Zambia

    The Americas

    • AidWatch Canada, Canada
    • Vision GRAM-International, Canada and  D R Congo
    • Gloria Rodríguez, Colombia
    • Movimiento Nacional Cimarrón, Colombia
    • Alianza ONG, Dominican Republic
    • Christian Acosta, Ecuador
    • CECADE, El Salvador
    • Union des Amis Socio Culturels d’Action en Developpement (UNASCAD), Haiti
    • Jamaica Climate Change Youth Council, Jamaica
    • Uso Inteligente ASV AC, México
    • MY World México, México
    • Humberto Soto, México
    • Coordinadora por los Derechos de la Infancia y la Adolescencia de Paraguay, Paraguay
    • Consorcio Agroecológico Peruano, Perú
    • Raise Your Voice Saint Lucia Inc, Saint Lucia
    • UNANIMA International, United States
    • Congregation of the Mission, United States
    • World Union for Progressive Judaism, United States
    • Transdiaspora Network, United States
    • Sustainably Wise, United States
    • Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights, United States
    • The GOOD Group, United States
    • Let There Be Light International, United States
    • ALICIA STAMMER, United States
    • Andrea Ruiz, United States
    • TRIPPINZ CARE INC, United States
    • Pleading for the Widows International Foundation, United States
    • Missionary Oblates of Immaculate, United States
    • Oblate Ecological Initiative, United States
    • United Nations Association of the National Capital Area, United States
    • New Future Foundation, United States
    • World Roma Federation, US
    • Kosmos Journal; Unity Earth, USA
    • NGO Committee on Sustainable Development-NY, USA
    • Volunteer Groups Alliance, USA
    • Findhorn Foundation, USA
    • TAP Network, USA
    • Global Choices, USA/ UK
    • REDHNNA, Venezuela
    • OMEP World Organization for Early Childhood Education, Argentina
    • Fundación para la Democracia Internacional, Argentina
    • Fundacion para Estudio e investigacion de la Mujer, Argentina
    • Reaccion Climatica, Bolivia
    • Viviane Weingärtner, Brazil
  • Stop the war: Act for justice, climate & peace

    By Lysa John, Secretary-General of CIVICUS & Oli Henman, Global Coordinator for Action 4 Sustainable Development

     Russia’s war in Ukraine has left many communities facing catastrophe. In a world already wracked by multiple crises such as searing inequality and escalating climate change, this conflict is tearing through communities.

    Millions of people are directly affected. They face fragile circumstances, with immeasurable sadness caused by the death of loved ones, loss of livelihoods, displacement, destruction of homes, interruption of education, and more.

    The conflict has also placed huge new burdens on the multilateral system, putting a further break on progress towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals that has already been set back by the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Read on Indian Nation
  • Sudan War: Protect Refugees and displaced persons, including women and women's rights defenders
    CIVICUS joins civil society organisations in urging the international community to ensure the protection of refugees and internally displaced persons including women and women human rights defenders in Sudan.

    On June 8th, 2023 the Sudanese Ministry of transportation announced that all Sudanese nationals including women and children are required to obtain visas to cross to Egypt starting June 10th, 2023. The route to Egypt was the safest and most accessible pathway of evacuation for women and WHRDs. With the new visa requirements that ended visa waivers for women and children, the most accessible opportunity for safety for thousands of women and WHRDs is jeopardized[1].
  • UKRAINE: ‘If we share information, leaders won’t be able to turn blind eye to human rights violations’

    Yaropolk BrynykhCIVICUS speaks with Yaropolk Brynykh of Truth Hounds about Ukrainian civil society’s response to the Russian invasion.

    Truth Hounds is a civil society organisation (CSO) aimed at fighting against the impunity of perpetrators of international crimes and grave human rights violations through investigation, documentation, monitoring, advocacy and problem-solving assistance for vulnerable groups. Jointly with Brussels-based International Partnership for Human Rights, The Truth Hounds team has carried out over 50 fact-finding missions to document war crimes in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

    What are the main ways in which your organisation is responding to the Russian invasion?

    I’m a board member of the Ukrainian human rights organisation Truth Hounds, which has focused on documenting war crimes and crimes against humanity in war contexts since 2014. We wouldn’t be able to tackle this mission without a highly qualified team of human rights professionals with experience in conflict areas – not only in the east of Ukraine and occupied Crimea but also in neighbouring countries, including in Nagorno Karabakh, a territory disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. Having prepared three extensive submissions to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, we have developed thorough knowledge of international standards and best practices of evidence collection and systematisation of war crimes.

    Thus, when Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, I immediately joined a field team of investigators working day and night to document Russian war crimes in our country. Since then, our team members have collected evidence of indiscriminate shelling, targeted attacks against civilians, ecological crimes and other violations of customs of war. On the basis of that, our team has already prepared and published 13 reports revealing grave human rights violations and war crimes committed by the Russian military.

    Most of our current efforts in response to the Russian invasion focus on monitoring human rights violations and war crimes committed by the Russian army, international advocacy, support for professional groups and humanitarian and legal aid to people in need.

    Our team also supports the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office in chasing perpetrators of war crimes through documentation and monitoring of human rights violations. We also share reports and evidence as much as possible to provide international judicial bodies, including the ICC, with evidence that can one day be used to bring perpetrators to justice.

    In the context of the war, we also understand the importance of information, so our team works to produce accurate and reliable information as quickly as possible and shares it with international media groups. We believe that if we share information about Ukraine, global leaders won’t be able to turn a blind eye to the human rights violations that Russia is perpetrating here. Our nation needs support from the whole world; hence, our current mission is to deliver facts from the field to the international community.

    How is the conflict affecting Ukrainian civil society’s work?

    Ukrainian civil society is in the same boat as the whole nation, and as everyone else, we are trying to keep working despite the difficult circumstances. Some civil society representatives, including well-known human rights defenders, have joined the army to fight and protect the country. Others have had to leave Ukraine, but they are doing their best to operate in exile within their limited possibilities.

    While many CSOs moved to western Ukraine to try and resume their activities despite limited technical and financial opportunities, others decided to stay in the eastern and southern parts of the country, to cover humanitarian needs and help with the logistics of relocation of the civilian population. But their capacities are down to a minimum because they are not able to receive much support from international CSOs.

    Only a tiny segment of civil society took on board information about a possible Russian invasion and was prepared enough. They have managed to continue working for the past weeks. But even this small group cannot be as effective as it used to be because of the need to hide in shelters during chaotic air and rocket attacks.

    Overall, civil society is under tremendous mental pressure, which will have long-lasting effects. This will become yet another challenge for the country once the war is over. Civil society will suffer from post-traumatic syndrome.

    What should the international community do to help?

    Ukrainian civil society needs advocacy and communications support. Our partners must help us deliver our messages to our allies and governments worldwide. Needless to say, Ukraine cannot win this fight alone. But we share the same democratic values and we need your support.

    All of us in contemporary Ukrainian civil society grew up believing in democratic values and we heard time and again that these were the most important principles for the western world. Now we are fighting for these values, we ask the international community to amplify our voices. If it doesn’t, it will be clear that western countries choose their business interests over democratic values. We don’t want to be let down.

    Ukraine also needs the humanitarian assistance of international organisations. We understand how hard it is for organisations such as the World Health Organization and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to organise proper fieldwork. But there is one thing even harder: explaining to people from war-affected regions why these organisations disappear when they need them the most.

    Since 2014, when Russia occupied Crimea and invaded Ukraine for the first time this century, Ukrainians have seen thousands of international organisations’ representatives spending their time here, mostly in expensive hotels and restaurants. We were told that were here to try and save Ukrainian lives. But now that Ukrainian lives are in fact under immediate threat, international organisations are not here anymore. For us, they are now invisible and silent.

    Civic space in Ukraine is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
    Get in touch with Truth Hounds through itswebsite orFacebook page.
  • UKRAINE: ‘International organisations are clearly not up to their historic responsibilities’

    Oleksandra MatviichukCIVICUS speaks with Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the board of the Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), about human rights violations in Ukraine amid the Russian invasion and civil society’s response.

    Established in 2007, CCL is a Ukrainian civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes human rights and democratic values in Ukraine and Europe.

    How has Ukrainian civil society organised in the wake of the Russian invasion?

    Ukrainian civil society came together and issued the Kyiv Declaration, an appeal made by 100 civil society leaders that includes six points: to establish safe zones that protect civilians from air and ground attacks; to provide immediate defensive military aid, including lethal and non-lethal weapons; to implement crippling economic and financial sanctions to undermine Russia’s war machine; to provide immediate aid to local humanitarian organisations; to freeze the assets and revoke the visas of Putin’s cronies; and to provide the technology and support required to record war crimes.

    There are a lot of CSOs in Ukraine, and therefore lots of initiatives happening. CCL has an initiative called Euromaidan SOS, which we launched a while back, in 2013, to provide legal help to activists detained during the Revolution of Dignity. This initiative involves hundreds of volunteers and focuses on legal and logistics support, humanitarian assistance and the documentation of war crimes to help bring perpetrators to justice.

    We work alongside international organisations, foreign governments and the Ukrainian diaspora. We have a campaign dedicated to the establishment of humanitarian corridors and we work with partners in several countries to provide aid in occupied cities. Russians have deliberately isolated occupied cities, attacking people who try to evacuate and obstructing humanitarian assistance. We are working to help those people.

    We also engage with partner human rights organisations in European countries, such as France and Germany, so that they put pressure on their national governments. Some countries have continued doing business as usual with Russia, even though they have repudiated the war. We need their governments to make the kind of political decisions that will save Ukrainian lives.

    As well as producing information to disseminate abroad so that the world knows what is happening in Ukraine, we use Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to spread information among people within Ukraine. One of the ways Russian invaders try to isolate the local population is by cutting off communications. We work to bypass these obstacles and provide life-saving information regarding evacuation procedures, medical care and official decisions, among other things.

    We have all adapted our work to the needs of the moment. I for instance am a human rights lawyer, so my field is the law, but I have somewhat shifted my priorities. I do not have military experience or expertise, but I have had to learn a number of things to be able to help. My work now not only involves research on war crimes for the quest for international justice, but also advocating and finding ways to pressure for the war to be stopped. So while I still conduct work in the field of law and gather evidence for future use, I also do other things, such as connecting with international organisations to try to get them to maintain their presence in Ukraine.

    What are you asking the international community to do?

    We work to force the international community to act in ways that are consistent with their words. Western politicians have expressed their support for Ukraine and its people, but their actions say otherwise. They have established economic sanctions against Russia, but there are still too many loopholes. A clear example is that of the SWIFT network, which has banned only a few Russian banks. Sberbank, one of the biggest banks, has not been excluded. We want all Russian and Belarusian banks expelled from the system, which would hopefully obstruct funding for the war and put enough pressure so that they will push for stopping it. Another urgent measure would be to put an embargo on Russian oil and gas, which are enabling the Russian government to fund its invasion of Ukraine.

    We don’t want the international community to get comfortable with what is happening in Ukraine. They must stand in solidarity with us and help us fight this. Our number one priority is to be able to defend ourselves, but we are fighting not only for ourselves but also for the values of a free world. Russia started this war because it is afraid of NATO. Putin is afraid of freedom. We hope our example will also impact on other post-soviet states and we will get to decide what our region will be like.

    We want the international community to provide tangible solutions. Now that the bulk of refugees have been got to safety, it is time to reach for a more ambitious goal. We need strategic measures that will stop war crimes and force the invasion itself to stop. In occupied territories, we have already seen people being beaten up, arrested and tortured. Detentions, kidnappings and torture are being used against the brave Ukrainians who go out with the Ukrainian flag and face Russian soldiers. It is only a matter of time before human rights defenders, journalists, religious leaders and civil society activists and organisations start to be deliberately targeted. We need to find ways to protect people. 

    What is your assessment of the international response to the Russian invasion so far?

    We feel and appreciate the huge wave of solidarity across the globe, but it is not enough to address our situation. What we need is a serious response to the Kyiv Declaration.

    Unfortunately, our advocacy asks have not been met. International organisations and our allies are focusing on providing humanitarian assistance to refugees outside Ukraine. This is very important because there are more than three million Ukrainian refugees now. But it is also the easiest thing to do in this horrible situation, when tens of millions remain in Ukraine, where war is still happening. The people who have stayed also need protection and humanitarian assistance, and they need it even more urgently.

    This is why we urged the establishment of a no-fly zone and the supply of long-range distance weapons, defence systems and fighter planes. We have been asking for weeks but have not received anything yet. What we got instead from the international community has been drones, that’s all. But drones will not protect civilians from Russian attacks.

    Our own allies sometimes offer us aid that is not useful. Instead of listening to our requests, people who have no idea what it is to be under this kind of attack insist on providing the help they think we need. For instance, I have received calls from international CSOs who wanted to send us vests and helmets, which hopefully would arrive in Kyiv within a few weeks. That sounded funny because right now we don’t know what will happen within the next few hours. I had to explain to them that if Russians came to occupy Kyiv and found us wearing their nice helmets, they would kill us all. Their helmets won’t protect us from the dangers we face.

    I think the architecture of the international governance system is not working properly because it has a fundamental design defect. Russia is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The mandate for this body is to maintain international peace and security, but we have seen the total opposite of that take place in Ukraine. And there is also a lack of understanding of their responsibilities by those who are in positions where they could help. When the war started, international organisations evacuated their staff from Kyiv and other places under attack. International organisations are clearly not up to their historic responsibilities. 

    I remain in Kyiv and have spent yet another horrible night in which residential buildings have been targeted by Russian missiles. I really don’t understand what the international community is waiting for. We need their urgent help. The people who died last night in Kyiv couldn’t wait.

    Civic space in Ukraine is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
    Get in touch with the Center for Civil Liberties through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ccl_ua on Twitter.
  • UKRAINE: ‘The presence of international organisations is key to ensure safe humanitarian corridors’

    Sasha RomantsovaCIVICUS speaks with Sasha Romantsova, executive director of the Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), about Ukrainian civil society’s response to the Russian invasion.

    Established in 2007, CCL is a Ukrainian civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes human rights and democratic values in Ukraine and Europe.

    What are the main ways in which your organisation is responding to the Russian invasion?

    In the face of the unprecedented situation in Ukraine, on the first day of the Russian invasion CCL renewed its Euromaidan SOS initiative. This was launched in 2013 to provide legal help to activists detained during the peaceful protests held in the context of the Maidan Revolution, or Revolution of Dignity, which erupted in response to the then-president’s sudden decision not to sign a political and free trade agreement with the European Union.

    This initiative, which brings together hundreds of volunteers, is now working on various aspects of Russia’s human rights violations in Ukraine. More specifically, our volunteers are documenting war crimes and gathering information about prisoners and missing persons.

    Other volunteers help spread the word about what is going on in Ukraine through our social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter. They share useful information 24 hours a day. They publish content in various languages on YouTube. There is a whole group of volunteers who provide translations and specialists who tirelessly work on video editing.

    At the international level, we maintain communication channels through our diaspora, international human rights networks, partners and friends. We discuss with diplomats the urgent need for the protection of human rights in Ukraine. One significant issue we have discussed is the need for the presence of the missions of international organisations to ensure safe humanitarian corridors to evacuate civilians from war zones.

    Additionally, to respond to requests from people in need, we have created a special chatbot for the Telegram app.

    We are also constantly conducting advocacy actions and campaigns, such as #CloseTheSky, supporting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s international demand for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. We are now starting a new campaign regarding the need for safe humanitarian corridors – safe evacuation routes for those fleeing the war.

    Alongside us, many other human rights organisations are involved in various areas of documenting Russia’s war crimes. Additionally, there are numerous public initiatives on all fronts, among them efforts to provide humanitarian cargo and logistics, evacuate civilians and organise art events and media campaigns, including some aimed to a Russian audience. These are very important because otherwise the truth about what is happening in Ukraine would never get reach the Russian population. We maintain a database of initiatives across the country. 

    How is the conflict affecting Ukrainian civil society’s work?

    Most CSOs have been forced to suspend their activities on the ground, and some have had to leave Ukraine for the time being. Many CSO staff members and activists who have stayed have at the very least sent their families away. There are some cities – such as Kharkov in the northeast and Mariupol in the southeast – where it is impossible for any CSO to continue to work. In other cities, such as Berdyansk, Kherson and Melitopol, activists are being kidnapped for their work.

    CCL continues to operate from Ukraine and our team members have not left the country. We are truly blessed to have a group of fantastic people who have run the Euromaidan initiative since Russia started this war.

    What should the international community do to help?

    Our demands to global leaders are to close the skies over Ukraine, provide weapons for our effective protection and fully enforce all the sanctions imposed on Russia, including the disconnection of all Russian banks from the SWIFT network and the cessation of oil and gas purchases from Russia.

    Given that most international organisations, including the United Nations (UN), have evacuated their international staff from Ukraine due to serious threats to their lives, we urge them to send in international missions qualified to work in military conditions.

    These missions’ duty should be to monitor the actions of both parties. The UN should establish an international tribunal to establish the facts of the Russian Federation’s military aggression, while the International Criminal Court should consider and promptly rule on war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. The International Committee of the Red Cross should be in charge of organising the exchange and removal of the dead from both sides.

    We stress the urgent need for international presence and international monitoring of violations during the evacuation of the civilian population from destroyed cities, villages and settlements. We therefore urge international civil society to support the advancement of our demands to the governments of democratic countries and the leadership of international organisations.

    Civic space in Ukraine is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
    Get in touch with the Center for Civil Liberties through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ccl_ua on Twitter.

Sign up for our newsletters

Our Newsletters

civicus logo white

CIVICUS is a global alliance that champions the power of civil society to create positive change.

brand x FacebookLogo YoutubeLogo InstagramLogo LinkedinLogo

 

Headquarters

25  Owl Street, 6th Floor

Johannesburg
South Africa
2092

Tel: +27 (0)11 833 5959


Fax: +27 (0)11 833 7997

UN Hub: New York

CIVICUS, c/o We Work

450 Lexington Ave

New York
NY
10017

United States

UN Hub: Geneva

11 Avenue de la Paix

Geneva

Switzerland
CH-1202

Tel: +41 (0)79 910 3428