civic space

• Nuevo documento sobre las restricciones que sufren los activistas que luchan contra el cambio climático
  • El activismo ambiental es peligroso y, con demasiada frecuencia, mortal. Esto puede empeorar a medida que la creciente crisis climática agrava el acceso a los recursos naturales.
  • Millones de personas han marchado este año pidiendo el fin de la injusticia climática, pero en todo el mundo solo el 4 por ciento de la población mundial vive en países donde los gobiernos respetan adecuadamente las libertades de asociación, reunión pacífica y expresión, según el Monitor CIVICUS.
  • Aunque la COP 25, que se celebrará en Madrid del 2 al 13 de diciembre, debía ser la "COP de la gente", no pudo encontrar un hogar en América Latina, que sigue siendo la región más peligrosa del mundo para defender el medioambiente

  Millones de personas salieron a las calles en 2019 pidiendo el fin de la injusticia climática, pero en la primera línea de la crisis y en las Naciones Unidas, valientes activistas continúan siendo silenciados deliberadamente. Este nuevo documento de posición "Silenciando a los Testigos: activismo climático desde la primera línea hasta la ONU" detalla cómo las personas que hablan por la justicia climática son amenazadas e intimidadas con violencia, leyes represivas, juicios frívolos y campañas de desinformación. En lugar de responder a las demandas del movimiento climático por una respuesta más ambiciosa y justa a la crisis climática, los gobiernos eligen sofocar sus voces.

  En octubre, cuando la sociedad civil chilena pidió al gobierno que retirara a los militares de las calles antes de la COP 25, el gobierno de Piñera respondió cancelando de la noche a la mañana esta reunión central. El retiro de Chile como anfitrión de la COP refleja una tendencia preocupante,  después de que Brasil decidió no alojar la COP 25 y Polonia, la anfitriona de la COP 24, impuso restricciones a las movilizaciones públicas y limitó la participación de la sociedad civil acreditada.

  El escrutinio por parte de la sociedad civil y las contribuciones a las conversaciones sobre el clima de la ONU son vitales en un año en que millones de personas marcharon por las calles exigiendo el fin de la inacción climática. Los recientes desarrollos en las negociaciones climáticas de la ONU, incluida la eliminación del histórico informe de 1.5 grados del IPCC de las negociaciones, bajo la presión de estados como Arabia Saudita, muestran la necesidad vital de que la COP 25 sea la primera 'COP de la gente', y que se reviertan las tendencias del cierre del espacio cívico para la sociedad civil desde el nivel local hasta el global.

  Para obtener más información y solicitudes de entrevistas, comuníquese con:

  Lyndal Rowlands (Inglés)

  Natalia Gomez Peña (Inglés, Español)

  Descargue:  Español | Inglés

• ONLINE CIVIC SPACE: ‘We shouldn’t expect tech giants to solve the problems that they have created’

  As part of our 2019 thematic report, we are interviewing civil society activists and leaders about their experiences of backlash from anti-rights groups and their strategies to strengthen progressive narratives and civil society responses. CIVICUS speaks to Marek Tuszynski, co-founder and creative director of Tactical Tech, aBerlin-based international civil society organisation that engages with citizens and civil society to explore the impacts of technologyon society and individual autonomy. Founded in 2003, in a context where optimism about technology prevailed but focus was lacking on what specifically it could do for civil society, Tactical Tech uses its research findings to create practical solutions for citizens and civil society.

  Some time ago it seemed that the online sphere could offer civil society a new space for debate and action – until it became apparent that online civic space was being restricted too. What kinds of restrictions are you currently seeing online, and what's changed in recent years?

  Fifteen years ago, the digital space in a way belonged to the people who were experimenting with it. People were building that space using the available tools, there was a movement towards open source software, and activists were trying build an online space that would empower people to exercise democratic freedoms, and even build democracy from the ground up. But those experimental spaces became gentrified, appropriated, taken over and assimilated into other existing spaces. In that sense, digital space underwent processes very similar to all other spaces that offer alternatives and in which people are able to experiment freely. That space shrank massively, and free spaces were replaced by centralised technology and started to be run as business models.

  For most people, including civil society, using the internet means resorting to commercial platforms and systems such as Google and Facebook. The biggest change has been the centralisation of what used to be a distributed system where anybody was able to run their own services. Now we rely on centralised, proprietary and controlled services. And those who initially weren’t very prevalent, like state or corporate entities, are now dominating. The difference is also in the physical aspect, because technology is becoming more and more accessible and way cheaper than it used to be, and a lot of operations that used to require much higher loads of technology have become affordable by a variety of state and non-state entities.

  The internet became not just a corporate space, but also a space for politics and confrontation on a much larger scale than it was five or ten years ago. Revelations coming from whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden and scandals such as those with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are making people much more aware of what this space has become. It is now clear that it is not all about liberation movements and leftist politics, and that there are many groups on the other end of the political spectrum that have become quite savvy in using and abusing technology.

  In sum, changes are being driven by both economic and, increasingly, political factors. What makes them inescapable is that technology is everywhere, and it has proliferated so fast that it has become very hard to imagine going back to doing anything without it. It is also very hard, if not impossible, to compartmentalise your life and separate your professional and personal activities, or your political and everyday or mundane activities. From the point of view of technology, you always inhabit the same, single space.

  Do people who use the internet for activism rather than, say, to share cat pictures, face different or specific threats online?

  Yes, but I would not underestimate the cat pictures, as insignificant as they may seem to people who are using these tools for political or social work. It is the everyday user who defines the space that others use for activism. The way technologies are used by people who use them for entertainment ends up defining them for all of us.

  That said, there are indeed people who are much more vulnerable, whose exposure or monitoring can restrict their freedoms and be dangerous for them – not only physically but also psychologically. These people are exposed to potential interceptions and surveillance to find out what are they doing and how, and also face a different kind of threat, in the form of online harassment, which may impact on their lives well beyond their political activities, as people tend to be bullied not only for what they do, but also for what or who they are.

  There seems to be a very narrow understanding of what is political. In fact, regardless of whether you consider yourself political, very mundane activities and behaviours can be seen by others as political. So it is not just about what you directly produce in the form of text, speech, or interaction, but also about what can be inferred from these activities. Association with organisations, events, or places may become equally problematic. The same happens with the kind of tools you are using and the times you are using them, whether you are using encryption and why. All these elements that you may not be thinking of may end up defining you as a person who is trying to do something dangerous or politically controversial. And of course, many of the tools that activists use and need, like encryption, are also used by malicious actors, because technology is not intrinsically good or bad, but is defined by its users. You can potentially be targeted as a criminal just for using – for activism, for instance – the same technologies that criminals use.

  Who are the ‘vulnerable minorities’ you talk about in your recentreport on digital civic space, and why are they particularly vulnerable online?

  Vulnerable minorities are precisely those groups that face greater risks online because of their gender, race or sexual orientation. Women generally are more vulnerable to online harassment, and politically active women even more so. Women journalists, for instance, are subject to more online abuse than male journalists when speaking about controversial issues or voicing opinions. They are targeted because of their gender. This is also the case for civil society organisations (CSOs) focused on women’s rights, which are being targeted both offline and online, including through distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, website hacks, leaks of personal information, fabricated news, direct threats and false reports against Facebook content leading to the suspension of their pages. Digital attacks sometimes translate into physical violence, when actors emboldened by the hate speech promoted on online platforms end up posing serious threats not only to people’s voices but also to their lives.

  But online spaces can also be safe spaces for these groups. In many places the use of internet and online platforms creates spaces where people can exercise their freedoms of expression and protest. They can come out representing minorities, be it sexual or otherwise, in a way they would not be able to in the physical places where they live, because it would be too dangerous or practically impossible. They are able to exercise these freedoms in online spaces because these spaces are still separate from the places where they live. However, there is a limited understanding of the fact that this does not make these spaces neutral. Information can be leaked, shared, distorted and weaponised, and used to hurt you when you least expect it.

  Still, for many minorities, and especially for sexual minorities, social media platforms are the sole place where they can exercise their freedoms, access information and actually be who they are, and say it aloud. At the same time, they technically may retain anonymity but their interests and associations will give away who they are, and this can be used against them. These outlets can create an avenue for people to become political, but that avenue can always be closed down in non-democratic contexts, where those in power can decide to shut down entire services or cut off the internet entirely.

  Is this what you mean when you refer to social media as ‘a double-edged sword’? What does this mean for civil society, and how can we take advantage of the good side of social media?

  Social media platforms are a very important tool for CSOs. Organisations depend on them to share information, communicate and engage with their supporters, organise events, measure impact and response based on platform analytics, and even raise funds. But the use of these platforms has also raised concerns regarding the harvesting of data, which is analysed and used by the corporations themselves, by third-party companies and by governments.

  Over the years, government requests for data from and about social media users have increased, and so have arrests and criminalisation of organisations and activists based on their social media behaviour. So again, what happens online does not stay online – in fact, it sometimes has serious physical repercussions on the safety and well-being of activists and CSO staff. Digital attacks and restrictions affect individuals and their families, and may play a role in decisions on whether to continue to do their work, change tactics, or quit. Online restrictions can also cause a chilling effect on the civil society that is at the forefront of the promotion of human rights and liberties. For these organisations, digital space can be an important catalyst for wider civil political participation in physical spaces, so when it is attacked, restricted, or shrunk, it has repercussions for civic participation in general.

  Is there some way that citizens and civil society can put pressure on giant tech companies to do the right thing?

  When we talk about big social media actors we think of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp – three of which are in fact part of Facebook – and we don’t think of Google because it is not seen as social media, even though it is more pervasive, it is everywhere, and it is not even visible as such.

  We shouldn’t expect these companies to solve the problems they have created. They are clearly incapable of addressing the problems they cause. One of these problems is online harassment and abuse of the rules. They have no capacity to clean the space of certain activities and if they try to do so, then they will censor any content that resembles something dangerous, even if it isn’t, to not risk being accused of supporting radical views.

  We expect tech giants to be accountable and responsible for the problems they create, but that’s not very realistic, and it won’t just happen by itself. When it comes to digital-based repression and the use of surveillance and data collection to impose restrictions, there is a striking lack of accountability. Tech platforms depend on government authorisation to operate, so online platforms and tech companies are slow to react, if they do at all, in the face of accusations of surveillance, hate speech, online harassment and attacks, especially when powerful governments or other political forces are involved.

  These companies are not going to do the right thing if they are not encouraged to do so. There are small steps as well as large steps one can take, starting with deciding how and when to use each of these tools, and whether to use them at all. At every step of the way, there are alternatives that you can use to do different things – for one, you can decentralise the way you interact with people and not use one platform for everything.

  Of course, that’s not the whole problem, and the solution cannot be based on individual choices alone. A more structural solution would have to take place at the level of policy frameworks, as can be seen in Europe where regulations have been put in place and it is possible to see a framework shaping up for large companies to take more responsibility, and to define who they are benefiting from their access to personal information.

  What advice can you offer for activists to use the internet more safely?

  We have a set of tools and very basic steps to enable people who don’t want to leave these platforms, who depend on them, to understand what it is that they are doing, what kind of information they leave behind that can be used to identify them and how to avoid putting into the system more information than is strictly necessary. It is important to learn how to browse the internet privately and safely, how to choose the right settings on Google and Facebook and take back control of your data and your activity in these spaces.

  People don’t usually understand how much about themselves is online and can be easily found via search engines, and the ways in which by exposing themselves they also expose the people who they work with and the activities they do. When using the internet we reveal where we are, what we are working on, what device we are using, what events we are participating in, what we are interested in, who we are connecting with, the phone providers we use, the visas we apply for, our travel itineraries, the kinds of financial transactions we do and with whom, and so on. To do all kinds of things we are increasingly dependent on more and more interlinked and centralised platforms that share information with one another and with other entities, and we aren’t even aware that they are doing it because they use trackers and cookies, among other things. We are giving away data about ourselves and what we do all the time, not only when we are online, but also when others enter information about us, for instance when travelling.

  But there are ways to reduce our data trail, become more secure online and build a healthier relationship with technology. Some basic steps are to delete your activity as it is stored by search engines such as Google and switch to other browsers. You can delete unnecessary apps, switch to alternative apps for messaging, voice and video calls and maps – ideally to some that offer the same services you are used to, but that do not profit from your data – change passwords, declutter your accounts and renovate your social media profiles, separate your accounts to make it more difficult for tech giants to follow your activities, tighten your social media privacy settings, opt for private browsing (but still, be aware that this does not make you anonymous on the web), disable location services on mobile devices and do many other things that will keep you safer online.

  Another issue that activists face online is misinformation and disinformation strategies. In that regard, there is a need for new tactics and standards to enable civil society groups, activists, bloggers and journalists to react by verifying information and creating evidence based on solid information. Online space can enable this if we promote investigation as a form of engagement. If we know how to protect ourselves, we can make full use of this space, in which there is still room for many positive things.

  Get in touch with Tactical Tech through itswebsite and Facebook page, or follow@Info_Activism on Twitter.

• Open Government Partnership undermined by threats to civil society
  • Fundamental civic freedoms seriously undermined in over a third of OGP countries – Colombia, Honduras, Liberia and Mexico fare worst
  • Worrying picture revealed by the CIVICUS Monitor, a new online research tool that rates civic space around the world and documents systemic violations of rights

  Johannesburg, 2 December 2016 –People’s rights to protest, organise and speak out are currently being significantly violated in 25 of the 68 active Open Government Partnership (OGP) countries, according to the CIVICUS Monitor, an online tool to track and compare civic freedoms on a global scale.

  The new tool launched in October by the global civil society alliance CIVICUS rates countries based on how well they uphold civic space, made up of three fundamental rights that enable people to act collectively and make change: freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression.

  The OGP brings together governments and civil society with the shared aim of making governments more transparent, accountable and responsive to their citizens. OGP countries make multiple commitments relating to civil society and public participation, which include consulting with civil society and enabling citizens to input on policy.

  Of the 68 active OGP countries, the CIVICUS Monitor finds that civic space in four - Colombia, Honduras, Liberia and Mexico -  is repressed, which means that those who criticise power holders risk surveillance, harassment, intimidation, imprisonment, injury and death. Civic space is also rated as repressed in Azerbaijan and Turkey, both recently declared ‘inactive’ by the OGP’s steering committee.

  In the past six months, the CIVICUS Monitor has documented a wide variety of attacks on civil society in these four countries, ranging from the assassinations of five social leaders in just one week in Colombia, to the police’s use of tear gas and water cannons to disperse student protests in Honduras, and from the four-hour detention and questioning of a newspaper editor in Liberia to the murder of a community radio journalist in Mexico.

  A further 21 OGP countries are rated obstructed, meaning that space for activism is heavily contested through a combination of legal and practical constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental freedoms.

  Other commitments on civic participation and civic space that OGP countries make include releasing and improving the provision of information relating to civic participation; bringing in or including citizens in oversight mechanisms to monitor government performance; and improving legal and institutional mechanisms to strengthen civil society capabilities to promote an enabling environment for participation. 

  “The existence of significant restrictions on civil society in more than a third of OGP countries is deeply troubling and calls into question their commitment to the principle of empowering citizens upon which the OGP was founded,” said Cathal Gilbert, lead researcher on the CIVICUS Monitor. “OGP countries should be harnessing the potential of public participation in governance, rather than silencing government critics and harassing human rights defenders.”  

  Of the remaining OGP countries, civic space in 31 is rated as narrowed. A total of 12 countries are rated as open, which means that the state safeguards space for civil society and encourages platforms for dialogue. Positively, no OGP countries fall into the CIVICUS Monitor’s closed category.

  “Notably, OGP countries as a group fare better than the rest of the globe on civic space,” said Gilbert. “However, much more needs to be done collectively to ensure that commitments on public participation made by OGP countries in their national development plans are carried through.”

  As heads of state and government, members of parliament, academia, business and civil society representatives meet at the OGP Summit in Paris, France from 7-9 December, CIVICUS urges delegates to focus discussions on best practices to improve civic space conditions in OGP countries.

  ###

  For more information, please contact CIVICUS’ media team on .

  Notes to editor

  During the OGP Summit, lead researcher Cathal Gilbert will present these findings from the CIVICUS Monitor during a session from 11:15 - 12:35 on Thursday 8th December in Room 1, Palais d’Iena, Paris. For more information see here: https://en.ogpsummit.org/osem/conference/ogp-summit/program/proposal/459. CIVICUS Secretary-General Danny Sriskandarajah will take part in a high-level panel on civic space at the OGP Summit on Friday 9th December.

  The CIVICUS Monitor is available at https://monitor.civicus.org. Ratings are based on a combination of inputs from local civil society activists, regional civil society experts and research partners, existing assessments by national and international civil society organisations, user-generated input and media-monitoring. Local views are prioritised. The CIVICUS Monitor is regularly updated during the week and users are invited to contribute. More information on the methodology is available here.

  ###

  Annex I – CIVICUS Monitor ratings, December 2016 (Active OGP countries highlighted in bold)

  All (134) Countries:

  Closed (16 countries): Bahrain, Burundi, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, UAE and Vietnam

  Repressed (33 countries): Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cambodia, Cameroon, CAR, Chad, China, Colombia, Djibouti, DRC, Egypt, Gambia, Honduras, Iraq, Liberia, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan, Palestine, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Swaziland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe

  Obstructed (29 countries): Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Moldova, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, Ukraine

  Narrowed (40 countries): Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Montenegro, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Uruguay, USA

  Open (16 countries): Andorra, Belgium, Cape Verde, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden

  CIVICUS is a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world.

  www.civicus.org

  www.twitter.com/CIVICUSalliance

  www.facebook.com/CIVICUS

  #CIVICUSMonitor

   

• Open NGO letter about the funding gap affecting UNHR mechanisms & the OHCHR

  To:
  All Permanent Missions to the United Nations in Geneva and New York

  Cc:
  UN Secretary General
  UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
  Chairpersons of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies
  Coordination Committee of UN Special Procedures

  It is with a sense of urgency that we convey our deep concern regarding the critical funding situation affecting the UN’s human rights mechanisms and OHCHR. We understand that the combination of delays in payments of UN member states’ assessed contributions to the regular budget and the 25% cut to travel of UN representatives, including treaty body experts and Special Procedure mandate holders, and other budget cuts (2018-2019) may adversely impact on the capacity of various human rights mechanisms to carry out their mandates effectively.

  In April, the Chairpersons of the 10 human rights treaty bodies were informed that due to the financial situation, the autumn 2019 sessions of six treaty bodies may need to be cancelled.[1] Not only is the cancellation of treaty body sessions deeply worrying as it may involve cancellation of reviews already scheduled and delay decisions on individual communications pending before the Committees but it also sends a troubling message ahead of the 2020 treaty body strengthening discussions. This unprecedented development would come as we celebrate the 30^th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 40^th anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

  We understand that other independent expert mechanisms such as the Special Procedures, and other mechanisms created by the Human Rights Council such as Fact-Finding Missions and Commissions of Inquiry, may also be hampered in carrying out their mandates to monitor and investigate human rights violations.

  As of 10 May, only 44 UN member states had paid all their assessments due to the UN. We would like to  commend Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Malaysia, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Rwanda, Samoa, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sweden, Switzerland and Tuvalu for having done so.[2] 98 member states had paid their regular budget assessments by 20 May 2019.

  The failure to pay assessed contributions is only the latest in a worrying trend of shortfalls and cuts affecting the UN budget allocated to its human rights mechanisms. In the 2018-2019 budget the General Assembly made adjustments to reduce the resources for experts by 15 per cent, reduce the travel of representatives by 25 per cent, and reduce resources for travel of staff by 10 per cent^[3], all without taking into account the disproportionate effect these decisions would have on the UN’s human rights mechanism. Only 3.7 per cent of the total UN regular budget is currently allocated to OHCHR[4]. We are extremely concerned by reports that the funding gap may affect the functioning of OHCHR and the human rights mechanisms in 2020 and beyond.

  Against the worrying background of a global pushback against the promotion and protection of human rights, we urge all UN member states to:

  • Pay their assessed contributions without further delay, unless they have already done so, in order to assure the functioning of the UN’s human rights mechanisms.
  • Prioritise securing adequate funding for the UN’s human rights pillar, with the promotion and protection of human rights being also indispensable to development, peace and security.
  • Initiate, in due time ahead of the 2020-2021 budget negotiations, discussions on how to reverse the trend of reduced regular budget for OHCHR and assuring that the UN’s human rights mechanisms are not disproportionately affected by over-all cuts to the UN budget, including by restoring the budget allocation for travel of representatives for these mechanisms.

  [1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24621&LangID=E

  [2] http://undocs.org/en/A/73/443/Add.1, para. 26 and https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml accessed on 27 May 2019.

  [3] https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/gaab4270.doc.htm

  [4] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/FundingBudget.aspx

  SIGNATORIES 

• Outcomes & reflections from UN Human Rights Council

  38th Session of the Human Rights Council
  End of Session Joint Civil Society Statement

  Our organisations welcome the adoption of the resolutions on civil society space, peaceful protest, on violence against women and girls and on discrimination against women and girls and the Council’s rejection of attempts to impede progress on protecting civil society space, peaceful protest and the rights to sexual and reproductive health.

  On civil society space, the resolution recognizes the essential contribution that civil society makes to international and regional organisations and provides guidance to States and organisations on improving their engagement with civil society.  On peaceful protest, it sets out in greater detail how international law and standards protect rights related to protests. 

  On violence against women and on discrimination against women, we consider that ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights are vital in efforts to combat violence and discrimination against women, online and offline, as well as to ensure targeted and specific remedies to victims. We appreciate that the work of women human rights defenders towards this is recognised. 

  We consider the adoption of the resolution on the contribution of the Council to the prevention of human rights violations as an important opportunity to advance substantive consideration on strengthening the Council’s ability to deliver on its prevention mandate.

  Following challenging negotiations, we welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on human rights and the Internet, reaffirming that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, and calling on States to tackle digital divides between and within countries, emphasising the importance of tools for anonymity and encryption for the enjoyment of human rights online, in particular for journalists, and condemning once more all measures that prevent or disrupt access to information online.

  We welcome continued Council attention to Eritrea's abysmal human rights record. This year's resolution, while streamlined, extends expert monitoring of, and reporting on, the country and outlines a way forward for both engagement and human rights reform. We urge Eritrea to engage in long-overdue meaningful cooperation. 

  We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus under item 4 with an increased vote - as it is still the only independent international mechanism to effectively monitor human rights violations in Belarus - while remaining concerned over a narrative to shift the mandate to item 10 in the absence of any systemic change in Belarus. 

  We welcome the consensus resolution on the Democratic Republic of Congo, putting in place continued monitoring and follow up on the expert’s recommendations on the Kasais. However, given violations and abuses throughout several regions in the country, occurring against the backdrop of an ongoing political crisis, delayed elections, and the brutal quashing of dissent, we urge the Council to promptly move towards putting in place a country-wide mechanism that can respond to events on the ground as they emerge.

  We welcome the strong resolution on Syria, which condemns violations and abuses by all parties, and appropriately addresses concerns raised by the COI about the use of chemical weapons, sexual and gender-based violence, and the need to address situations of detainees and disappearances. The Council cannot stay silent in the face of continued atrocities as the conflict continues unabated into its seventh year.

  We welcome the joint statements delivered this session on Cambodia, the Philippines,and Venezuela. We urge Council members and observes to work towards increased collective action to urgently address the dire human rights situations in these countries.  

  On the Philippines, we emphasise that the Council should establish an independent international investigation into extrajudicial killings in the ‘war on drugs’ and mandate the OHCHR to report on the human rights situation and on moves toward authoritarianism.  

  The joint statement on Cambodia represents a glimmer of hope after the Council's failure to take meaningful action against clear sabotage of democratic space ahead of elections. Close scrutiny of the human rights situation before, during and after the elections is paramount and the Council must take immediate action on current and future human rights violations in this regard.

  We welcome the joint statement delivered by Luxembourg  calling on the HRC President to provide short oral updates on cases of alleged intimidation or reprisal, including actions taken, at the start of the Item 5 general debate of each Council session and also provide States concerned with the opportunity to respond.

  Finally, the new Council member to replace the United States should demonstrate a principled commitment to human rights, to multilateralism and to addressing country situations of concern by applying objective criteria. 

  Joint Statement by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), the Association for Progressive Communications, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project), Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF), International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) 

• Over 30 rights organisations call on international powers to pressure Cambodia over human rights abuses

  Joint Letter

  We call on Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, to join the EU in its call to the Cambodian government to take concrete action to address the human rights situation in the country. Repressive laws that restrict human rights and civic freedoms in Cambodia have worsened during COVID-19.

  ---

  Your excellency,

  We, the undersigned 32 civil society organizations, urge the Governments of Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America to echo the European Union (EU) in its call for the respect of human rights in Cambodia. On August 12, 2020, the EU will partially suspend Cambodia’s “Everything But Arms” (EBA) tariff preferences in response to the Cambodian government’s “serious and systematic violations” of four human and labor rights conventions: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize No. 87 (1948), the ILO Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organize and to Bargain Collectively, No. 98 (1949), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).

  The Cambodian government continues to crack down on civil society, independent media, and the political opposition and human rights defenders to silence critical voices in the country. In the past three years it has adopted a series of repressive laws that unduly restrict human rights. In November 2019, the Cambodian authorities had arbitrarily detained nearly 90 people solely on the basis of the peaceful expression of their opinions or political views as well as their political affiliations. While 74 opposition members, detained on spurious charges, were released from detention in December 2019, the charges against them remain, and they risk re-arrest. Opposition leader Kem Sokha’s criminal trial for unsubstantiated treason charges has been marred by irregularities since it began in January. Sokha remains banned from politics and faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted. The Prime Minister announced that the trial could drag on into 2021.

  In April, the Cambodian government used the Covid-19 crisis to adopt an unnecessary and draconian state of emergency law that provides the authorities with broad and unfettered powers to restrict freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association – rights that have already been severely restricted during his 35 years in power. Currently, another 30 political prisoners are behind bars due to the Cambodian government’s continued onslaught on free speech in the guise of combating Covid-19.

  Cambodia committed to protecting and promoting fundamental human rights, providing equal protection of the law, and holding genuine periodic elections when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Cambodian government ratified all of the fundamental ILO Conventions that protect the rights of workers and trade unions. Respect for human rights and the rule of law are essential for a stable and flourishing business environment over the long term.

  Cambodia agreed that access to the EU’s Everything But Arms preferential trade scheme is conditional on adherence to the principles in 15 core human rights and labor rights conventions. The European Commission’s decision on February 12, 2020 to partially suspend Cambodia’s EBA preferences followed a yearlong process of ‘enhanced engagement’ between the EU and Cambodia during which the Cambodian government was given every opportunity to cooperate and make significant progress in improving its protection of human rights and labor rights. The European Commission concluded that Cambodia had failed to take necessary measures to retain full EBA benefits.

  We agree. For example, on January 22, 2020, 23 companies and nongovernmental organizations, including major international garment brands sourcing from Cambodia, raised concerns about the labor rights situation and urged the government to amend or repeal two deeply problematic laws, the Trade Union Law and the Law on Associations and NGOs (LANGO), and drop all outstanding criminal charges against union leaders. The government’s tokenistic amendments to the repressive Trade Union Law fell considerably short of what was required to address that issue. More broadly, the government has demonstrated an unwillingness to take concrete and meaningful steps to improve the rights situation; to the contrary, Cambodia adopted further repressive laws and arrested more peaceful critics during the intensive monitoring and evaluation process.

  We therefore call on Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, acting collectively and bilaterally, to echo the EU in its call to the Cambodian government to take concrete action without delay, including but not limited to the following, to address the human rights situation in the country:

  1. Immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners, including activists, human rights defenders, journalists, and members of the political opposition.
  2. Cease harassment, arbitrary arrests, and physical attacks against union leaders, land activists, human rights defenders, opposition members, and journalists.
  3. Immediately drop the baseless treason charges against opposition leader Kem Sokha.
  4. Conduct independent, impartial, prompt and thorough investigations into attacks, including killings, against critics of the government and hold those responsible to account. For example, the Cambodian government should establish an independent Commission of Inquiry to conduct an effective investigation into the extrajudicial killing of political commentator and human rights defender Dr. Kem Ley in July 2016.
  5. Repeal the Law on the Management of the Nation in State of Emergency.
  6. Reverse the three rounds of amendments to the Law on Political Parties that permit the arbitrary dissolution of political parties and ban party leaders from political activity without due process.
  7. Significantly amend the Trade Union Law in consultation with workers, labor advocates and other stakeholders to bring it into full compliance with ILO Conventions No. 87 (Freedom of Association) and No. 98 (Right to Organize and Collectively Bargain), both ratified by Cambodia.
  8. Repeal or significantly amend the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO), which violates Cambodia’s obligations under international human rights law.
  9. Cease the government’s arbitrary interference and surveillance of the online and offline media and end the use of repressive laws to censor and control independent media.
  10. Restore the work of the Arbitration Council by enabling it to hear all labour disputes, including termination of union leaders, and guaranteeing unrestricted access to all workers, irrespective of union status.
  11. Ensure prompt, fair and transparent resolution of all land conflicts by providing fair compensation to victims of land grabbing and introduce an effective and fair system of land titling, while ending the harassment of land rights activists and affected communities.
  12. Cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Special Procedures in order to allow them to fulfil their mandates without interference.

  The Cambodian government should take meaningful measures that reverse the deterioration of Cambodia’s human rights situation in order to restore trade preferences or lift suspensions of bilateral aid.

  We urge your government to call on the Cambodian government to comply with its obligations under international human rights law and to support the EU in its efforts to bring respect for human rights, rule of law, and democracy to the Cambodian people.

  Yours sincerely,

  Arab Network for Food Sovereignty - Regional
  Article 19
  ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
  Asian Democracy Network (ADN)
  Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)
  Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP)
  Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC)
  Civil Rights Defenders
  CIVICUS
  Clean Clothes Campaign East Asia
  EarthRights International
  Fair Labor Association (FLA)
  FIAN Germany
  Forest Peoples’ Programme
  Front Line Defenders
  Global Witness
  Human Rights Now (HRN)
  Human Rights Watch (HRW)
  International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)
  International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek
  People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) - Europe
  People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) - Global
  Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific - Regional
  Roots for Equity, Pakistan
  Struggle to Economize Future Environment (SEFE), Cameroon
  The B Team
  World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
  Zambia Social Forum

  ---

  Civic space in Cambodia is rated as Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor.

• Pacific Island leaders are tightening the screws on press freedom, dissent

  By Josef Benedict, CIVICUS  civic space research officer. 

  It’s not only climate change and rising sea levels that threaten the lives and well-being of Pacific Islanders. Rising levels of official intolerance of dissent and free speech across the region poses a threat to the well-being of their democracies.
  Read on: Asian Correspondent

• PAKISTAN: ‘It doesn’t matter who casts the vote as much as who counts the vote’

  CIVICUS speaks about Pakistan’s upcoming election with Muhammad Mudassar, Chief Executive Officer at the Society for Human Rights and Prisoners’ Aid (SHARP-Pakistan).

  Founded in 1999, SHARP is a human rights civil society organisation working for the rights and wellbeing of vulnerable groups, including refugees and internally displaced people, and working on issues related to people trafficking and smuggling of migrants, including through advocacy at the national and international levels, capacity development, community services and emergency response.

  What’s the political climate in Pakistan ahead of the election?

  Post-COVID-19, like many global south countries Pakistan grapples with security concerns, political instability and economic challenges that affect both its citizens and government. This means that uncertainty loomed over the upcoming election, but the situation is much clearer now and the country is all set to vote for the new parliament. It would be unconstitutional to extend the mandate of the existing caretaker government. The Chief Justice of Pakistan has confirmed that it is set in stone that the general election should be held on time.

  To what extent are conditions conducive to a free and fair election?

  As had always been the case, there’s controversy around the election, which many observers feel lacks conditions for fair competition. While some political parties are free to conduct their activities, others claim to face restrictions in submitting nomination papers and campaigning, and their members are subjected to arrests.

  Over the past 75 years, no prime minister of Pakistan has completed a full five-year term, and they have often ended up in jail. This trend started with Zulficar Ali Bhutto, deposed during martial law in 1977, followed by his daughter Benazir Bhutto, who was dismissed twice. A similar fate befell recent former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan.

  Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) has had ample space for campaigning, even though Sharif, a three-time former prime minister, was ousted for alleged corruption in 2017 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. In October 2023, he returned to Pakistan from exile in the UK, where he had travelled on bail for medical treatment in 2018. Sharif’s corruption conviction and his lifetime ban from politics were overturned by the Supreme Court in early January. Now most political commentators are predicting that the PML-N will win the election.

  In comparison, Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party is complaining that it has been all but barred from participating in the election. The Electoral Commission of Pakistan disqualified Khan due to one conviction out of around 200 cases against him and barred the party from using its famous cricket bat symbol on ballot papers. Khan has also recently received 10 and 14-year sentences  on charges of leaking state secrets and corruption. Nomination papers of most national and provincial PTI leaders were rejected by District Returning Officers but appellate tribunals of higher judiciary subsequently accepted most and allowed them to context elections.

  Further, there’s no democracy within political parties due to nepotism and dynastic leadership. Most political parties function as family dynasties, which drives independent leaders away. It has rarely been about people’s choices. It doesn’t matter who casts the vote as much as who counts the vote.

  How have civic space conditions changed over the past years?

  The media and civil society are divided and, human rights activists comment, there is an atmosphere of discontent that somewhat hinders the freedom of speech. Further, unemployment and other pressing issues continue to prompt many people to leave Pakistan.

  Still, at SHARP-Pakistan we remain hopeful and keep analysing problems to try to offer solutions. As part of Pakistani civil society, we aspire to forge connections, work alongside and learn from international partners to be able to better promote human rights and democracy at home. We need free and fair elections so that results truly reflect the will of the people.

  How are you and other civil society groups engaging with the election?

  The role of civil society in the election takes the form of support for the institutional processes of a democratic vote well as the more substantive development of a democratic electorate. Civil society is also playing its due role in reducing election-related conflict dynamics and promoting a peaceful electoral environment.

  ---

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

• PAKISTAN: ‘The authorities must guarantee the human rights of Afghan asylum seekers’

  
  CIVICUS speaks about the move to expel Afghan refugees from Pakistan withHabib Malik Orakzai, president ofPakistan International Human Rights Organization (PIHRO).

  Founded in 1999, PIHRO is a human rights civil society organisation (CSO) working toempower people to defend their rights, investigate rights abuses, fight discrimination and promote social justice and peace. It provides life-saving health, education and legal assistance and protection for refugees in Pakistan.

  What’s the current situation of Afghan refugees in Pakistan?

  The number of Afghan refugees in Pakistan is uncertain. It’s been gradually increasing over time, reaching around four million, with 2.3 million officially registered. Many of them work as physical labourers on daily wages, although some enjoy financial success as prominent businesspeople. Public sentiment towards refugees is generally friendly and supportive.

  The Pakistani government has established over 20 Afghan Citizen Card centres in 17 districts. However, Afghan refugees continue to face obstacles in legal registration, largely due to the fact that multiple stakeholders are involved in the procedure, including the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), provincial and federal authorities, and security agencies. Challenges include bureaucratic complexities, limited human and financial resources and an ever-growing number of refugees seeking protection. Political and security concerns further complicate the registration process. Afghan refugees could choose to go to other countries but often face stricter immigration laws elsewhere.

  Why has the Pakistani government ordered the expulsion of Afghan refugees?

  Initially, Pakistan hosted over three million Afghan refugees, but following the Taliban takeover in August 2021 there was a growing influx of new refugees who entered Pakistan both legally and illegally. Pakistan was already going through a financial crisis and the arrival of thousands of asylum seekers added to the economic challenges. Evidence obtained by security agencies over some Afghan refugees’ involvement in recent terrorist activities and street crimes led to the government’s decision to expel unregistered refugees.

  This decision has begun to be implemented. The government has conducted search operations to identify undocumented refugees and send them to the recently built camps in main cities, from where they’re being deported to the nearest borders with Afghanistan. Forcibly returned people face numerous problems in Afghanistan, including food insecurity, lack of accommodation and health issues. Those expelled during the winter face particularly harsh condition when returning.

  What is Pakistani civil society, including PIHRO, in response?

  Civil society organisations, although playing a limited role, are involved in advocacy efforts to prevent forced returns. PIHRO has expressed concerns over the expulsion of Afghan refugees at various forums, engaged in discussions with policymakers and collaborated with international organisations to ensure refugee protection. We are closely observing the situation and engaging with sister organisations dedicated to helping Afghan refugees develop a joint strategy for refugee settlement.

  PIHRO is a member of the Asia Pacific Refugees Rights Network, through which we advocate for non-refoulement, emphasising Pakistan’s responsibility to protect Afghan refugees on its territory and prevent their forced return to Afghanistan regardless of documentation status.

  Rather than expelling undocumented refugees, the Pakistani government should develop strategies to provide people fleeing Afghanistan with reasonable and timely access to registration processes, allowing them to state their claim for international protection. The authorities must work toward regularising legal status and guaranteeing the human rights of Afghan asylum seekers.

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

  The international community should increase its support to Pakistan as the major host of Afghan refugees by providing adequate funding to guarantee that asylum seekers have access to education and healthcare and have their basic needs met. We also urge other governments to increase their refugee admissions from Pakistan through resettlement programmes and facilitate better access to legal routes to safety.

  Despite repeated requests, we haven’t received sufficient international support, which is crucial to prevent further escalation of the crisis. Given the current winter conditions in Afghanistan, our immediate focus is on providing shelters and kits for winter. We call on the international community to address these pressing issues and urge the government of Pakistan to halt refugee expulsions at least temporarily and collaboratively devise a strategy in consultation with the authorities in Afghanistan and the UNHCR.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with PIHRO through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@PIHROrg onTwitter.

• PAKISTAN: ‘They put a black hood over my face and took me to the airport’

  CIVICUS speaks with Syed Fawad Ali Shah, a writer and journalist from Pakistan, about the situation of journalists in his country and his experience of persecution, exile and deportation.

  In retaliation for his reporting on terrorism, crime, drugs, corruption and human rights, in 2011 Syed was kidnapped and tortured by Pakistani intelligence officers, forcing him to seek asylum in Malaysia. He remained there until August 2022, when he was deported back to Pakistan, allegedly because the Pakistani authorities falsely identified him as a police officer subjected to disciplinary proceedings.

  What is the situation for journalists in Pakistan?

  It is too easy to kill, kidnap or torture journalists in Pakistan. Many Pakistani journalists have sacrificed a lot for press freedom, which the Pakistani government has strangled. Journalists working for most newspapers and TV channels in Pakistan have not received their salaries for several months because critical newspapers do not receive government advertising, putting pressure on journalists.

  Why did you flee Pakistan in 2011?

  In 2011, I was kidnapped in Islamabad by the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), precisely for raising my voice for the freedom of people forcibly disappeared by the ISI. I was also exposing corruption in the police and bureaucracy and reporting on terrorism and the Taliban.

  The ISI kept me in a secret, black hole-type jail for three months and 18 days. They released me on the condition that I quit journalism, leave the country, or work as a spy for them. I told them I would quit journalism, but it was impossible for me to leave the country or spy for the ISI.

  To save my life, I kept my word. The ISI freed me in April. In June, I was wounded in a bomb blast in Peshawar. After my name was published in a local newspaper, the ISI called me threateningly, accusing me of starting journalism again. I told them that I had not; I just happened to be there. In August, I reluctantly left my country. I travelled to Thailand and a few days later I arrived in Malaysia, where I was granted refugee status.

  What was your experience as a refugee?

  As a refugee registered with the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), I experienced many hardships. UNHCR cardholders are sometimes arrested in Malaysia, so I lived in fear of being deported back to Pakistan. During my 13 years in Malaysia, I moved from place to place to avoid arrest. I wrote for various newspapers and websites, reporting mostly on refugee issues and immigration policies.

  In 2016, UNHCR Malaysia referred my resettlement case to the United States Refugee Admissions Program through the International Rescue Committee (IRC). However, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) refused to resettle me in the USA due to alleged security issues. They gave me a series of reasons I could not be admitted as a refugee in the USA. I applied for reconsideration in 2016 but did not hear back from the DHS until June 2022.

  From 2016 to 2022, I waited for a response from the US government that never came. I finally asked the IRC to send my case file back to UNHCR Malaysia, which they did. I wrote hundreds of times to UNHCR Malaysia requesting resettlement in a safe country but got no response, although I sent them copies of the threats I received from the Pakistani government, the police report and the letter written to Interpol for my arrest. Other who became refugees after me were resettled by UNHCR, but I was stuck there. Pakistani intelligence officers stationed at the Pakistani High Commission in Kuala Lumpur often spied on me.

  How did your arrest and deportation happen?

  On 23 August 2022, at 9pm, I was abducted by Malaysian immigration officials in a joint operation with the Pakistani ISI in the Bangsar area of Kuala Lumpur. They took me to the Immigration Headquarters in Putrajaya, where they locked me up in the basement. On 25 August they put a black hood over my face and took me to the airport. Before taking me to the airport, they gave me a drug, saying it was for COVID-19, after which I fell unconscious. At the airport they removed the black hood and put me on a Pakistan International Airlines flight to Islamabad, with two ISI officers at either side. More than 30 people from Malaysian Immigration and the Pakistani diplomatic mission saw me off at the airport.

  When I arrived, the ISI sent me to an unknown prison in Islamabad without entering my data in the Federal Investigation Agency’s immigration system. I was detained for six months, during which time the Pakistani government did not acknowledge I was in Pakistan. But in March 2023, Malaysia’s Home Affairs minister finally acknowledged I had been deported and this was reported by international media.

  The authorities couldn’t hide me for longer and eventually handed me over to the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) cybercrime wing, who slapped me with two fake charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. After I received temporary bail, the judge was pressured by FIA’s cybercrime wing to fabricate further cases against me, so I am constantly afraid that the court will send me to jail. The ISI often oversteps its authority and kidnaps and disappears innocent people, which has led to thousands of cases pending in the Supreme Court of Pakistan without any result.

  What are your requests to the international community?

  I urge organisations working for the rights of refugees and journalists around the world, as well as the heads of all states that have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, to provide me with protection and immediately relocate me to a safe country under special circumstances.

  I also urge the leaders of democratic states to put pressure on the Pakistani government regarding my situation and to provide me with a way to leave the country safely, as was done for Asia Bibi, who was resettled in France in 2020.

  Due to pressure from Pakistani security agencies, my passport has been blocked for 10 years, and my name has been added to the Integrated Border Management System of Immigration, forcing me to change location every day. I am unable to sleep due to fear. Every time there is a knock at the door I panic. My heart beats fast all the time and I have fallen ill many times.

  ---

  Civic space inPakistan is rated ‘repressed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Follow@SyedFawadAli303 on Twitter.

• PAKISTAN: ‘We appeal to the international community to share the responsibility of welcoming Afghan refugees’

  CIVICUS speaks about the current move to expel undocumented migrants from Pakistan with Muhammad Mudassar, Chief Executive Officer of the Society for Human Rights and Prisoners’ Aid (SHARP-Pakistan).

  Founded in 1999, SHARP is a human rights civil society organisationworking for the rights and wellbeing of vulnerable groups, including refugees and internally displaced persons, and working on issues related to trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants, including through advocacy at national and international level, capacity development of stakeholders, community services and emergency response.

  What’s the situation of Afghan refugees in Pakistan?

  Pakistan has hosted one of the world’s largest refugee populations for nearly 44 years, as it started receiving Afghan refugees in the late 1970s. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), there are 1.4 million registered Afghan refugees, around 840,000 of them registered between 2017 and 2018, plus around 775,000 undocumented Afghan migrants. Since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, between 400,000 and 700,000 more have arrived in Pakistan to seek asylum and protection through embassies of countries such as Canada, Germany and the USA.

  But the Pakistani government hasn’t announced any policy to provide legal protection to new arrivals. In January 2022, the government barred the issuing of UNHCR asylum certificates to newly arrived Afghans, leaving them in a legal limbo. Acting on behalf of the UNHCR, SHARP has been the frontline organisation offering reception facilities.

  A few weeks ago, a refugee with three or four children ate a mouse poison pill while waiting for resettlement response. Fortunately, SHARP personnel were on site and she was promptly taken to the hospital and survived. This incident reflects the despair many Afghan refugees feel. They’ve spent all their savings coming to Pakistan and waiting while the cost of living only continues to increase. They often seek jobs but there is no legal provision for undocumented Afghans to work or do business. For that they have to use false Pakistani identities, and when they need to leave the country, they’re forced to sell all their assets for next to nothing. The absence of legal protections also leaves them vulnerable to forced labour, and young women are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

  Why has the Pakistani government ordered the expulsion of Afghan refugees?

  The situation in Pakistan remained peaceful for many years, largely due to the cultural and religious similarities between Pakistani and Afghan people. However, in 2014, an attack on school in Peshawar resulted in the death of over 150 students and teachers. More terrorist attacks followed across Pakistan. In response, the government made a national action plan to counter such attacks and adopted a zero-tolerance border management policy. This is because terrorists were believed to be entering Pakistan across the border with Afghanistan.

  Moreover, Pakistan is grappling with a difficult economic situation, including a fuel price hike and high unemployment, with political turmoil further complicating the situation.

  Social media also played a role by spreading content linking Afghan refugees to terrorism, negatively affecting public attitudes towards them. Repatriation of Afghans from Pakistan reached its peak in 2015, and relationships between host and refugee communities have increasingly deteriorated, with incidents of hostility continuously increasing over the years. Tensions escalated during cricket matches, leading to fights among Pakistani and Afghan supporters.

  In response, SHARP initiated community outreach sessions aimed at engaging young Afghans and Pakistanis to identify commonalities and prioritise them over differences to prevent further violence and create an environment of peaceful coexistence.

  How else is SHARP working to help Afghan refugees?

  We have partnered with the UNHCR for over 24 years and we operate in 14 offices with over 300 staff members in strategic locations. SHARP is the first contact point for anyone who enters Pakistan to seek asylum. Our role is to conduct a brief initial reception interview and collect documentation to put together the claims, which are reviewed and processed by the UNHCR for further interviews and the provision of protection documentation. We also provide free legal aid and assistance to refugees and migrants, psycho-social counselling and shelter services for the most vulnerable. We make referrals for medical services, emergency cash assistance and community-based protection services.

  Working alongside the UNHCR, last year SHARP submitted recommendations to the government, wrote letters to the Minister of Interior and met with the National Commission on Human Rights. I visited parliament three times to advocate for a policy for incoming Afghan refugees and the enactment of a national refugee law. Our recommendations stress the importance of a dignified and respectful approach aligned with humanitarian principles and long-term planning. We’ve urged the Pakistani government to engage with the international community, including the European Union (EU), to address this crisis and ensure that Afghans return home only voluntarily and in a dignified manner.

  It’s crucial to note that while Pakistan is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, for a long time it has welcomed refugees on humanitarian grounds, treating them as friends. It shouldn’t jeopardise years of efforts by expelling them as foes. The government should establish registration centres and give people several months to come forward and register their claims for protection. As it lacks the required technical capacity and resources, it should work closely with international and civil society partners.

  Is Pakistan receiving the international supportit needs to tackle the situation?

  The refugee crisis is a challenge for global south countries, which often lack robust legal protection and face economic difficulties. Lured by promises from third countries, asylum seekers often come to Pakistan and countries such as Bangladesh, Iran and Tajikistan and then await international assistance for resettlement. In Pakistan, hundreds approach our office daily asking for resettlement support, and we try to help, working alongside the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration.

  But the strain on Pakistani security, healthcare, education and other public services has become overwhelming. If the EU or an EU country urges us to host more Afghan refugees, they should first assess how many Afghan refugees they have welcomed in recent years and consider sharing the burden through resettlement programmes. The international burden-sharing mechanism isn’t working to provide breathing space for global south countries. There should be a flexible visa regime for Afghans who are stuck here in Pakistan and waiting to reunite with their families and friends in other countries.

  The situation worsened with the Ukraine crisis, because international support shifted towards addressing those humanitarian needs and the Pakistani crisis stayed largely neglected. Additionally, last year’s flash floods displaced nearly 3.4 million Pakistanis, killed around a million animals and affected numerous refugee communities. Although both the international community and the Pakistani government focused on addressing the consequences of the flood, many internally displaced people have been unable to return to their homes and are still living in camps. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine may further divert international attention and resources away from Pakistan.

  We have already been warned that there would be huge funding cut by approximately 60 per cent in 2024, posing a significant challenge in maintaining work for humanitarian organisations with extensive operations across Pakistan. The uncertainty of survival over the coming year is a pressing concern for us. We appeal to the international community to share the responsibility of welcoming Afghan refugees and support Pakistani humanitarian organisations and the government to help asylum seekers rebuild their lives.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with SHARP-Pakistan through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@sharp_pak onTwitter.

• Pakistan: Joint letter on civic space violations against Pashtuns

  Dr Shireen M Mazari
  Federal Minister for Human Rights
  Ministry of Human Rights
  9th Floor, New Pak Secretariat (Kohsar Block)
  Sector F-5, Islamabad, Pakistan

  Concerns regarding civic space violations against thePashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM)

  CIVICUS: the World Alliance for Citizen Participation is a global alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world. Founded in 1993, CIVICUS has members in more than 170 countries.

  The Pakistan NGO Forum (PNF) is an umbrella body composed of five networks of civil society organisations (CSOs) in Pakistan. Collectively, the networks have about 5,000 community-based organisations and CSOs as members. PNF’s primary mission is to create a conducive working environment for CSOs in Pakistan

  We are writing to you with regards to our concerns on civic space violations against the ethnic Pashtun people and in particular the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM). The PTM mobilised nationwide against human rights violations against Pashtun people, sparked by the killing of a young Pashtun man, Naqeebullah Mehsud, by the police in January 2018.

  As well as seeking justice for Naqeebullah’s killing, the movement mobilised around wider calls. Protesters have demanded the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission to examine human rights violations committed by the state and non-state actors in Pashtun areas, including enforced disappearances allegedly perpetrated by the Pakistan army, and extrajudicial killings. Protesters also continue to call for equal rights for Pashtun people, as guaranteed by the constitution, and the restoration of peace in Pashtun areas and the region in general.^[1]

  The CIVICUS Monitor, which tracks civic freedoms on a global scale, has documented a series of violations by the authorities and other actors, as set out below.

  The disruption of protests and arrest of protesters

  Scores of protesters have been detained or charged since the beginning of the protests, some under terrorism charges. In most cases, many of those detained were released without charge after weeks in prison. 

  • In March 2018, criminal cases were filed against Manzoor Pashteen and four other PTM leaders. The men were investigated for ‘provoking with intent to cause riot’ and ‘promoting enmity between different groups’ under sections 153 and 153a of Pakistan’s criminal code. According to human rights groups, the accusations were fabricated in “an attempt to smear the PTM and punish its leaders for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.”^[2]
  • In March 2018, Manzoor Pashteen reported that PTM supporters had received threats that they would be implicated in terrorism offences.^[3] In December 2018, he was banned from entering Balochistan province on the grounds of “incitement of unrest in the province through his hate speech and incendiary statement against the state and its institutions.” The ban remains in place.^[4]
  • In April 2018, at least 30 activists were arrested in the run-up to the Lahore rally. Police gave no reasons for the arrests; according to reports, “some bystanders kept asking the police as to why were they being picked up and where were they being taken to, but they gave no answer nor produced any arrest warrants as they whisked them away in their police van.”^[5]
  • In May 2018, police lodged cases against more than 150 PTM supporters for holding rallies across Karachi. The 150 were accused of crimes ranging from sedition and rioting to terror offences. PTM leader and member of parliament (MP) Mohsin Dawar told news outlet Dawni that the cases were a “tactic” to sabotage PTM’s main Karachi rally, planned to be held on 13 May 2018.^[6]
  • In June 2018, 37 PTM activists were arrested at a rally at the National Press Club in Islamabad. According to reports, they were made to sit in a prison van for three hours while the temperature was at almost 40 degrees Celsius before they were taken to Adiala jail. The 37 activists, who included several students, were subsequently charged with sedition.^[7] Their cases were referred to an anti-terrorism court, and all were denied bail until 24 September 2018, when the Islamabad district commissioner withdrew anti-terrorism charges.^[8]
  • In October 2018, authorities filed a police report (FIR) against activists who had organised a peaceful protest in Bannu, in southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the previous day.[9]
  • In January 2019, scores of protesters and PTM leaders were arrested during a rally on the outskirts of Karachi. Between 250 and 300 people were accused of various crimes under Pakistan’s Penal Code and Anti-Terrorism Act.^[10] Among those arrested was Alamzeb Mehsud, a prominent PTM activist who had been profiling missing persons and other war victims. Footage of his arrest showed his vehicle being intercepted by the police on a busy road, and armed police officers forcing him to disembark before he was taken into custody. He was subsequently charged with inciting a riot, defamation, ‘promoting enmity between different groups’, and ‘statements conducing to public mischief’ read with Section 7 of Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act. The court ordered him to be kept in custody for four days. Ali Wazir, a PTM leader and MP, was also charged, along with 15 other people.^[11]

  According to reports, police routinely put pressure on local people to stay away from PTM protests in various cities in Pakistan. Local printing presses refused to print campaign posters while authorities pressured businesses to refuse to provide chairs and tents for protests. Ahead of an April 2018 rally in Swat, lawyer and PTM leader Iqbal Khan reported that officials in the Swat region made announcements from mosques to warn people against participating in the gathering.^[12]

  Unlawful killing

  Our organisations are also concerned about the allegations of unlawful killing of a PTM leader Arman Loni, died in police custody on 2 February 2019.^[13] He had been arrested earlier that day in the southwestern district of Loralai in Baluchistan after participating in a sit-in outside Loralai Press Club in protest against a recent terror attack. Several police officers reportedly physically assaulted him in public with rifle butts, and he suffered blows to the head and neck. A few hours later, he died in hospital.^[14] To date, we are not aware of any credible investigation into the killing or any attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice. Arman’s death was only registered by the police after two months.^[15] Our organisations are also seriously concerned about reports that witnesses to his killing have been tortured or otherwise ill-treated by security forces.[16]

  Three days after the murder, more than 80 PTM protesters were detained by police after they gathered outside the National Press Club in Islamabad to protest about Aman’s death.^[17] At least 17 PTM members were subsequently charged under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Act of 1960 and moved to Adiala prison.

  Judicial harassment and threats against activists

  Activists have also faced harassment and threats for supporting the PTM. In August 2018, woman human rights defender Gulalai Ismail was accused, along with 19 other people, of making anti-state comments and using inflammatory language at a PTM rally in Swabi, Khyber Paktunkhwa province.^[18] The 19 PTM activists faced charges of ‘unlawful assembly’, ‘punishment for rioting’ and ‘punishment for wrongful restraint’. In October 2018, Gulalai was briefly detained at Islamabad airport as she re-entered the country from the UK. Officials kept her passport but could not tell her which government department had put her name on the Exit Control List (ECL), which imposes a ban on travelling outside the country, or why.^[19] In May 2019, the Peshawar High Court quashed[20] the charges against the PTM activists but Gulalai and other activists remain on the ECL.

  Hayat Preghal, a social media activist and supporter of the PTM, was released on bail on 3 October 2018 after more than two months in jail for social media posts that were deemed critical of the Pakistani authorities.^[21] He had initially been detained in July 2018 while visiting his family and charged under sections 9 and 10 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 for ‘anti-state activity through social media’, and sections 500 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

  Restrictions on media coverage

  We are also concerned that the authorities have attempted to suppress the PTM by silencing media coverage of the movement. In December 2018, internet service providers blocked the website of Voice of America's (VOA) Urdu language service. Its audience was primarily Pashto-speaking communities. Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry claimed the sites were blocked for “false and prejudiced reporting.” An intelligence source reported that the decision to block the website was triggered by VOA's coverage of PTM.^[22] An article by Manzoor Pashteen in the New York Times on 12 February 2019, entitled ‘"The Military Says Pashtuns Are Traitors. We Just Want Our Rights" was censored by its local publisher in Pakistan.[23]

  Journalists covering protests have been targeted in a similar manner to participants. Sailaab Mehsud of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty's Mashaal radio and Zafar Wazir of a local TV channel were accused in December 2018 by police of “raising slogans against state institutions and inciting the public to violence, along with nearly 30 other people.” Authorities raised the allegations following the journalists’ presence at a rally in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Sailaab said he and Zafar were covering the rally as journalists.^[24] In February 2019, the authorities halted the broadcasting of an interview with Manzoor Pashteen on a local Pashtu channel AVT Khyber.[25]

  International obligations

  These violations are inconsistent with Pakistan’s international obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which it ratified in 2008. These include obligations to respect and protect civil society’s fundamental rights to the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression. These fundamental freedoms are also guaranteed in Pakistan’s Constitution. Further, during Pakistan’s Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2017, the government supported recommendations to safeguard freedom of expression, protect the right to life and freedom of expression of journalists and human rights defenders (HRDs), and to investigate all reports of attacks against them and bring perpetrators to justice. It also committed to combat all forms of discrimination, particularly against ethnic minorities.^[26]

  We therefore make the following recommendations to the government of Pakistan:

  • Put an end the harassment, stigmatisation, intimidation, unlawful surveillance, travel restrictions and arrest of peaceful PTM activists and ensure that they can freely express their opinions and dissent without fear of reprisals;
  • Conduct a swift, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the death in custody of activist Arman Loni, and ensure that those responsible for his death are brought to justice;
  • Conduct impartial, thorough and effective investigations into all cases of attacks, harassment and intimidation against HRDs and journalists and bring the perpetrators of such offences to justice;
  • Drop all charges against protesters, community activists and HRDs for exercising their right to the freedom of peaceful assembly and instruct the police that it is their duty to facilitate peaceful assemblies, rather than hinder them;
  • Take immediate steps to ensure press freedom and halt all media restrictions against coverage of the PTM;
  • Ensure that HRDs are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear or undue hindrance, obstruction or legal and administrative harassment such as travel restrictions under the Exit Control List (ECL);
  • Take steps to make enforced disappearances and torture a criminal offence and ensure that all allegations of such acts are thoroughly investigated and those responsible brought to justice.

  We express our sincere hope that you will take these steps as a matter of priority and we hope to hear from you regarding our inquiries as soon as possible. We would be pleased to discuss these matters with you or other appropriate officials at any time.

  Sincerely,      

  David E. Kode
  CIVICUS Advocacy & Campaigns Lead

  Professor Mohamed Ismail
  Pakistan NGO Forum

  Cc:
  Diplomatic missions in Pakistan

   

  [1] ‘In Pakistan, long-suffering Pahtuns find their voice’, The New York Times, 6 February 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/world/asia/pakistan-pashtun-long-march.html.

  
  [2] ‘Peaceful Pashtun activists face criminal cases’, Amnesty International, 19 March 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa33/8079/2018/en.

  [3] ‘New Pashtun dissent meets old coercion tactics in Pakistan’, Gandhara, 26 March 2018, https://gandhara.rferl.org/a/Pakistan-pashtun-tahafuz-movement-coercion-tactics/29125095.html.

  [4] ‘Balochistan extends ban on Pashteen’s entry,’ Dawn, 3 April 2019, https://www.dawn.com/news/1473567.

  [5] ‘Civil Society condemns arrests of young activists’, The Daily Times, 27 April 2018, https://dailytimes.com.pk/232878/civil-society-condemns-arrests-of-young-activists.

  [6] ‘Over 150 PTM activists booked for sedition, terrorism’, Dawn, 11 May 2018, https://www.dawn.com/news/1406903.

  [7] ‘Islamabad police round up PTM supporters for holding anti-Taliban protest’, Pakistan Today, 9 June 2018, https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/06/09/islamabad-police-round-up-ptm-supporters-for-holding-anti-taliban-protest.

  [8] ‘ATC case against 37 PTM activists withdrawn’, The Express Tribune, 24 September 2018, https://tribune.com.pk/story/1810320/1-atc-case-37-ptm-activists-withdrawn.

  [9] ‘…meanwhile, FIR registered against PTM Bannu rally organisers’, Pakistan Today, 2 November 2018, https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/11/02/meanwhile-fir-registered-against-ptm-bannu-rally-organisers/

  [10] ‘Scores held under anti-terrorism laws in Pashtun rights rally in Pakistan’, News 18, 22 January 2019, https://www.news18.com/news/world/scores-held-under-anti-terrorism-laws-in-pashtun-rights-rally-in-pakistan-2009657.html.

  [11] ‘Pashtun rights activist Alamzeb Mehsud arrested in Pakistan’, Al Jazeera, 22 January 2019, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/prominent-pashtun-rights-activist-arrested-pakistan-190122121631198.html and ‘PTM leaders booked under anti-terror law, one held’, Dawn, 22 January 2019, https://www.dawn.com/news/1459029

  [12] ‘Pashtun campaigners complain of hurdles,’ Gandhara, 26 April 2018, https://gandhara.rferl.org/a/pashtun-campaigners-complain-of-hurdles-ahead-of-protest-in-pakistan/29194419.html.

  [13] ‘Rights group condemns arbitrary detention of protesters in Pakistan and the police killing of activist’, CIVICUS, 8 February 2019, https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/media-releases/3720-global-rights-group-condemns-arbitrary-detention-of-pashtun-protesters-in-pakistan-and-the-police-killing-of-a-leading-activist.

  [14] ‘Killing of Mr. Ibrahim Arman Loni & arbitrary detention of Ms. Gulalai Ismail and several PTM members’, Worldwide Movement for Human Rights, 14 February 2019, https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/pakistan-killing-of-mr-ibrahim-arman-loni-arbitrary-detention-of-ms.

  [15] ‘Case registered against Loralai police officer for Arman Loni’s death’, Dawn, 2 April 2019, https://www.dawn.com/news/1473444.

  [16] See Mohsin Dawar, 17 May 2019, https://twitter.com/mjdawar/status/1129489961378635776

  [17] ‘Abdullah Nangyal, Gulalai Ismail among dozens of PTM workers held in capital’, Pakistan Today, 5 February 2019, https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2019/02/05/abdullah-nangyal-gulalai-ismail-among-dozens-of-ptm-workers-held-in-capital.

  [18] ‘Prominent human rights activist briefly held by Pakistan authorities’, Voice of America, 14 October 2018, https://www.voanews.com/a/prominent-human-rights-activist-briefly-held-by-pakistan-authorities/4612861.html.

  [19] ‘Release Pashtun human rights defenders immediately and unconditionally’, Amnesty International, 12 October 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/pakistan-release-pashtun-human-rights-defender-immediately-and-unconditionally.

  [20] ‘PHC orders quashing of FIR against PTM leaders’, Dawn, 10 May 2019, https://www.dawn.com/news/1481340.

  [21] ‘Immediately and unconditionally release Muhammad Hayat Khan Preghal’, Amnesty International, 24 September 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA3391512018ENGLISH.pdf.

  [22] ‘Pakistan Tightens Coverage of Pashtun Rights Movement’, Voice of America, 11 December 2018, https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-tightens-coverage-of-pashtun-nationalist-movement/4696344.html.

  [23] ‘Pakistan censors New York Times article by activist critical of military’, Straits Times, 12 February 2019, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/pakistan-censors-new-york-times-article-by-activist-critical-of-military.

  [24] ‘Two journalists from D.I. Khan booked for covering protest rally’, Pakistan Press Foundation, 12 December 2018, https://www.pakistanpressfoundation.org/two-journalists-from-d-i-khan-booked-for-covering-protest-rally.

  [25] See Tabinda M. Khan, 20 February 2019, https://twitter.com/tabinda_m/status/1098251413312876544

  [26] Recommendations 152.170 (Cyprus), 152.176 (Greece), 152.175 (Norway) and 152.83 (Cote d'Ivoire) in ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Pakistan’, United Nations Human Rights Council, 29 December 2017, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/pkindex.aspx.

• PALESTINE: ‘Lack of a political horizon leading to the liberation of Palestinians has brought us here’

  CIVICUS speaks about the ongoing conflict in Gaza withAbdalaziz Alsalehi, senior researcher atthe Social and Economic Policies Monitor (Al-Marsad).

  Al-Marsad is a civil society organisation (CSO) that seeks to protect the rights of the most marginalised Palestinians through evidence-based policy analysis and monitoring and coalition building for advocacy, dialogue and cooperation.

  What’s the current situation in Gaza and the West Bank?

  The current situation is a continuation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Crimes against Palestinian civilians have persisted since 1948 to this day. Occupation forces continue to arrest, kill and displace Palestinians within their territories.

  Despite the world’s attention focusing on the attacks committed by Hamas, the 7 October events cannot be isolated from the historical context of Palestinian suffering, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank.

  Gaza has been subject to Israeli siege and control for about 16 years, while the West Bank is under a system harsher than apartheid. Life there is exceedingly challenging for Palestinians. The poverty rate in the West Bank and Gaza is over 29 per cent and the unemployment rate sits at about 27 per cent. These rates constantly go up and down due to economic instability.

  But the problem is not only economic and social, it is also distinctly political. Occupying forces and settler militias commit horrifying crimes against Palestinians. In 2022 alone, 224 people, overwhelmingly male, were killed – 53 in Gaza and 171 in the West Bank. Fifty-three were children. In the same year, the Palestinian Ministry of Health recorded 10,587 injuries caused to Palestinians by Israeli occupation forces and settler militias’ gunfire. Forty-five per cent were caused by live ammunition.

  Well before October 2023, attacks against healthcare facilities and providers were widespread, with 177 recorded incidents of assaults against patients, medical teams and healthcare facilities in 2022. Nine of these attacks targeted healthcare facilities, 97 targeted ambulances and 83 affected injured and sick people. Additionally, 173 incidents involved assaults on medical personnel. The nature of these attacks varied, including direct assaults with individual weapons, hindrance of the movement and work of medical teams, exposure to psychological violence and aggressive searches.

  This has been the plight of Palestinians for decades, but the situation escalated dramatically after 7 October.

  Between 7 October and 5 December, the state of Israel has killed at least 15,523 civilians in Gaza and 245 in the West Bank, 70 per cent of them women and children. The escalation may be a response to the Hamas attacks, but data from previous years suggests that there had already been a shift from covert to direct killing and direct forced displacement. This is apparent in the fact that through its war in Gaza, Israel has disproportionately killed children and women without achieving any of its declared goals.

  What led to the current escalation of conflict?

  The lack of a political horizon leading to the liberation of Palestinians has brought us here. Palestinians have been victims of occupation for decades. The continuous suppression operations and the displacement of Palestinians from their lands in the years following the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization have led to this outcome.

  It is crucial to note that although it witnessed no Palestinian escalation in recent years, Israel undermined any real opportunities for Palestinian economic empowerment, aiming for an economy controlled by Israel. Additionally, there were violations against sacred sites, particularly Al-Aqsa Mosque, as part of the ‘Judaisation’ of Jerusalem. This coincides with racial segregation on external roads and ongoing settlement activities, leading up to the events of 2021 when Palestinians in the occupied territories – and within the 1948 borders – and in Jerusalem rose up against the occupation. They continue to bear the consequences of those events to this day.

  All this is part of a series of events that Palestinians have been enduring since 1948 in the face of the colonial project that continues to uproot them from their land.

  Some believe that the current form of the government in Israel has led to the explosion of events, but this is not accurate. The occupation has long continued unchanged regardless of changes of government in Israel.

  It is worth noting that the region is changing and evolving, and global powers are undergoing radical transformations. With the war between Russia and Ukraine, the world’s attention diverted from the Palestinian cause and the ongoing oppression of Palestinians. Meanwhile, unconditional US support for Israel persists, which comes with the imposition of numerous conditions on Palestinians, who are witnessing the appropriation of their lands. These issues contribute to changes in the situation on the Palestinian front against the occupation. It cannot be conclusively determined at this moment whether changes will be in favour of Palestinians or not, but it does stir up stagnant waters.

  What challenges do Palestinian voices face in sharing their stories and demands internationally?

  My opinion is that western media – in the USA and Europe – is controlled by Zionist lobbies and manipulate facts and generate disinformation. Israel is also notorious for creating propaganda that serves its interests. Pro-Israel lobbies are so strong that some people fear exclusion in their societies if they voice their concerns about the situation of Palestinians.

  The challenge for Palestinians today lies in reaching a wider global audience. The world is not just Europe and the USA.

  Israel controls communications in occupied Palestine. When its control fails, it resorts to arresting people, and if this also fails it resorts to killing. However, Palestinians continue to convey their message to the world, and the world is beginning to open up to the truth, with part of it fully aware of what is happening in occupied Palestine. It is crucial for people in other societies to engage.

  Global governance institutions should also play an active role in conveying the messages and countering the suffering of Palestinians. The current negligence by the United Nations Security Council, the World Health Organization and the Red Cross is extremely dangerous. It paves the way for a global loss of trust in these institutions.

  What are the conditions for civil society in Palestine?

  Civil society is besieged. For 30 years, the Israeli occupation has undermined the work of CSOs, disabling their role in promoting self-reliant development, political change and an end to the occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. In recent years, the occupation government has become more explicit in suppressing CSOs, directly closing them down, confiscating their assets and arresting their staff.

  The occupation also imposes restrictions on the funding of CSOs. The political conditions on funding imposed by European and particularly US funders have led to the cessation of work by hundreds of CSOs.

  But the real gap arises from the fact that funders have transformed CSOs into an operational sector without linking them to a political horizon. Billions of dollars have been spent on agriculture, infrastructure and water, with little benefit. The Palestinian Authority also believes that CSOs narrow its political space because they are often critical of it too. But the truth is CSOs play a key role in overseeing the effectiveness of economic and social programmes.

  Beyond formal non-governmental organisations, civil society has essentially been destroyed, much like all civic bodies in the occupied Palestinian territories have been destroyed by the occupation. I would like to make clear that I’m speaking about civil society in its broad sense, encompassing various entities such as unions, youth clubs, political parties, collectives and social movements. This has played a crucial role in the retreat of political organisations that the occupation has fought against for decades.

  What international support do Palestinians receive, and what further support do you need?

  Essential sectors such as health, education and agriculture continue to suffer from a severe lack of support. The focus in recent years has been on advocacy and pressure, which is not the primary issue that needs attention to change the political reality.

  Above all, action is needed towards the goal of ending the occupation, by making Israel pay the price through boycotts on the economic, academic, cultural and even diplomatic levels. Israel must also face international courts for committing war crimes.

  How should the Israel-Palestine conflict be addressed?

  With all due respect, the framing of the question is part of the problem. What we are witnessing is not a conflict between states, but the resilience of an entire people against occupiers who have been killing, displacing and oppressing them for decades.

  When the issue is framed correctly, the answers become clearer. The problem lies in the colonial mindset: peace will only come when this is brought to an end. It is possible for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together here as they did before 1948.

  A long-discussed solution that has not yet achieved any tangible form is the two-state solution with a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders and its capital in East Jerusalem, including the return of refugees and a restoration of their material and moral rights. This could be implemented through global political pressure on Israel, boycotting the occupation until it complies with these conditions.

  But over the years Israel has not even accepted a version of this solution in which Palestinians relinquish more than 75 per cent of their historical land. Which brings us back to the roots of the problem: the colonial displacement of Palestinians from their land. This is what the occupying state seeks, and this what the world, especially free nations, should act against.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Al Marsad through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@almarsad_ps on Twitter.

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

• PALESTINE: ‘The counter-terrorism law is used to restrict political work in Palestine & shrink civic space in Israel’

  CIVICUS speaks withEinat Fogel-Levin, International Advocacy Coordinator for the Human Rights Defenders Fund (HRDF), about growing restrictions on Palestinian civil society. HRDF is an Israeli civil society organisation (CSO) working to protect Palestinian and Israeli human rights defenders (HRDs) by providing legal aid and defence to those facing various forms of legal persecution and fending off attacks on their bodies, persons and work.

• PALESTINE: ‘They label us antisemites or terrorists to silence us and paralyse our human rights work’

  CIVICUS speaks about civil society’s online activism against repression and oppression in Palestine with Nadim Nashif, executive director and co-founder of 7amleh: The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media.

  7amleh is a civil society organisation that advocates for Palestinian digital rights. With the aim of creating a safe, fair and free digital space for Palestinians, it researches digital rights, provides training to Palestinian activists and organisations and leads local and international advocacy campaigns.

  What is the focus of 7amleh’s work?

  We focus on digital rights and digital activism. Palestinian people have been living under occupation for the past seven decades. This kind of occupation obviously involves lots of violence, repression and oppression.

  As technology progressed and the internet became part of our lives, the same power relations were replicated in the online world. Palestinians live under siege from the Israeli government. This siege is not only physical; it has also migrated to the virtual world.

  There are frequent attempts to prevent Palestinians from exercising their freedom of expression online. This is done by pressuring companies to exclude Palestinians. For instance, many social media platforms are biased in their policy toward Palestinian content and many digital payment platforms don’t allow Palestinians to use them under various excuses due to Israel’s pressure. PayPal, for instance, is available to Israelis but not Palestinians. Palestinians’ freedom of expression is also limited because they can be arrested for what they post on social media. There’s an evident practice of discrimination against Palestinians.

  Our organisation is recording all these cases of restriction and documenting them to fight for the rights and freedoms of Palestinians.

  How have Palestinians worked around these restrictions to make themselves heard?

  The Palestinian identity is under attack. For instance, the Israeli army doesn’t let the Palestinian flag be raised. But Palestinians have tried to find creative ways to express their identity. For example, to represent their flag while not raising an actual flag, they have chosen to display the flag’s colours. These are the colours that can be found in watermelons, so they will instead draw a watermelon.

  Social media platforms use the available technology, their algorithms and search engines, to cooperate with the Israeli authorities by monitoring speech and deleting content when certain keywords come up. For example, Palestinian political movements are considered by Israel and the USA to be terrorist organisations, so their names are banned from social media. But digital activists are finding ways to write them that trick artificial intelligence, such as by adding full stops between letters. This is how they can still express themselves and find ways not to be banned entirely online. Those are some tactics Palestinians are using to refuse to play by the rules of those who want to limit them and tell them how to think, write and express their national identity.

  Digital activism is key. When you experience human rights violations on a daily basis, the camera becomes a tool of resistance. For many Palestinians, it is the only defence from soldiers and violent settlers attacking them constantly. In many cases, home evictions were prevented because they were livestreamed. That’s why the Israeli government initiated legislation to criminalise photography and video-making.

  Online global solidarity is also key, as shown by the 2021 case of the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem, in which online solidarity movements applied pressure to prevent house evictions. As a result, the Israeli government’s plan didn’t succeed.

  How have the authorities reacted to this activism?

  They have constantly tried to silence the Palestinian narrative and raise the Israeli one, by criminalising Palestinian activists and sending them to jail. There are cases in which you don’t even understand why someone is in jail.

  I remember the case of a young teenager from Jerusalem who posted on Facebook some phrases about Palestinians needing to go to Al-Aqsa Mosque to defend it from Israeli settlers. He spent one and a half years in jail because of this, which was not a call to violence at all. He just said, ‘Hey, this is our holy place, we need to protect it’. You can be sent to jail for saying something about protecting a place! This example is just one of many.

  The Israeli government is pushing many laws and regulations to be able to do this. One of them is the so-called ‘Facebook law’ it is trying to pass. Officially, it’s meant to help deal with harmful content. But it aims to grant Israeli courts the power to demand the removal of user-generated content on social media platforms that can be perceived as inflammatory or as harming the security of the state, people or the public. It is so vague that anything the Israeli authorities don’t like will be sent to the courts, without those affected being able to defend themselves. Using ‘secret evidence’, Israel can order companies to take down content they consider to be illegal. This would obviously be used exclusively against Palestinians.

  Many tactics of online repression are already being used, including lots of online brigading – coordinated actions by groups constantly reporting social media content to the Cyber Unit. Palestinians are under surveillance 24/7, especially on social media. Accounts are continually under surveillance and reported to social media companies. These companies are taking down almost 90 per cent of what the Israeli government asks them to.

  How can international civil society and the international community best support Palestinian civil society?

  I think they must take a firm stand when human rights violations happen. There’s an ongoing attempt to silence Palestinian civil society by labelling us as antisemites or terrorists. These accusations have profound effects: they aim to paralyse Palestinian civil society and prevent it recording human rights violations and atrocities – war crimes – committed against Palestinians.

  Internationally recognised Palestinian human rights organisations have been on the ground for more than four decades and have recorded everything. They clearly have nothing to do with terrorism or antisemitism – all they care about is human rights and democratic values. But many governments around the world fail to reject the accusations against them. Why?

  Any outstanding personality or activist standing up for Palestinians faces a smear campaign. We are trying to develop tools that help us deal with this, but it’s not simple. Palestine is not the only place where this is happening. We’ve seen shrinking civic space and civil society activists and organisations stigmatised as terrorists or terrorist supporters in many other countries in the global south, with many countries of the global north cooperating and supporting the regimes that oppress them.

  No human being would accept having their freedoms taken away without fighting back, as Palestinians do; it’s a natural human reaction. We hope allies and friends from global rights movements, political movements and civil society organisations will stand up for us and raise their voices on our behalf.

  Civic space in Palestine is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with 7amleh through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@7amleh and@NadimNashif on Twitter.

   

• Palestine: New Research brief documents escalation of attacks on civic freedoms

  ARABIC

  Civic freedoms in Palestine continue to deteriorate with an escalation of attacks on civil society organisations, journalists and Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) by the Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF).

  Ahead of the United Nations Human Rights Council debate on Item 7, “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, a new research brief by CIVICUS provides an overview of recent civic space restrictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) perpetrated by both IOF and OPT authorities.

  Violations documented as a result of Israel’s institutionalised regime of apartheid include the harassment and killing of journalists, protesters and HRDs, censoring Palestinian voices online and offline, and the forcible closure of civil society organisations (CSOs).

  Israel’s targeting of CSOs escalated in 2021 after six leading Palestinian human rights organisations were designated as “terrorist organisations” under the Counter-Terrorism Law. On 18 August 2022, the IOF forcefully entered, raided, and sealed the entries to the offices of seven CSOs^[1], confiscating and damaging property in some of the offices. Following the raid, the director of Al-Haq, one of the organisations targeted, was intimidated and threatened that he would pay a ‘personal price’ if Al-Haq continued its work.

  To date, there has been no accountability for the killing of Palestinian-US Al-Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed over four months ago, in May 2022, while reporting on an Israeli raid in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin, despite wearing a helmet and flak jacket marked “PRESS”.

  Violations of Palestinians' digital rights are commonplace, with major social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Tik Tok complicit in silencing Palestinian voices. For example, during the Sheikh Jarrah protests, where families faced forced eviction and imminent threat by Israeli settler organisations, social media was one of the most important vehicles to share evidence of human rights violations. However, users were systematically silenced on an egregious scale, including by deletion of content, blocking or closing of accounts, hiding hashtags, and reducing content reach. Offline, Palestinians who continue to express their discontent by staging protests are often met with violence from the IOF and settlers.

  In addition, violations of civic space and Palestinian human rights are committed by Palestinian authorities. Both Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank are responsible for harassing, detaining and attacking activists, journalists and protesters.

  “The deterioration of civic freedoms in Palestine due to increasing attacks by Israeli Occupying Forces can no longer be ignored. It's time for democratic governments to break their silence and condemn Israel's apartheid regime of systematic racial domination and oppression over the Palestinian people as a whole and to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on Israel,” said Aarti Narsee, Civic Space Research Officer. 

  ---

  More information

  Download the Palestine research brief in English | Arabic

  ---

  ^[1] The seven CSOs are: Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, Al-Haq, Bisan Center for Research and Development, Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), Health Work Committees (HWC), the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees (UPWC).

  Palestine is currently rated ‘Repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor. There are a total of 50 countries in the world with this rating (see all). This rating is typically given to countries where civic space is heavily contested by power holders, who impose a combination of legal and practical constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights (see the full description of ratings).

   

• PANAMA: ‘We’ll have to stay vigilant and resist any attempt to curtail rights and freedoms’

  

  CIVICUS discusses the results of Panama’srecent presidential election with Olga de Obaldía, executive director of the Foundation for the Development of Civic Freedom.

  The Foundation for the Development of Civic Freedom is a civil society organisation working to defend fundamental freedoms, empower citizens for democratic participation and strengthen democracy by promoting transparency and the struggle against corruption.

  Who is José Raúl Mulino, and why did he win the election?

  Mulino won the election in large part due to the popularity and charisma of former President Ricardo Martinelli, and also in part due to the peculiarities of the Panamanian electoral system.

  Martinelli campaigned despite being disqualified from running for or holding public office after being convicted of money laundering in a major corruption scheme involving overpriced road construction. He initially tried to register his wife as his running mate, presumably in order to give her his place if his legal troubles made it impossible for him to run. But he abandoned the plan because the constitution forbids the president appointing close relatives.

  Instead of his wife, he appointed Mulino, his security minister between 2009 and 2014. Martinelli’s conviction became final in February: he was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison and, in order to avoid prison, he sought asylum in the Nicaraguan embassy. The Electoral Court allowed Mulino to take Martinelli’s place. This decision was appealed on the grounds of unconstitutionality, but two days before the election the Supreme Court upheld the Electoral Court’s decision.

  Convicted or not, Martinelli maintained his enormous popularity and, from his embassy confinement, launched a media campaign based on the slogan ‘Mulino is me’, an attempt to transfer his core electoral support, estimated at between 30 and 35 per cent, to Mulino.

  Since Panama elects its president by a simple majority of votes, without a runoff, and there were eight candidates, Mulino won with 34 per cent of the vote.

  This electoral system should be revised to ensure the popular will is respected. However, it’s worth noting that Panamanians were civic-minded and accepted the result peacefully even though most had voted against the president-elect.

  What were Mulino’s campaign promises?

  Among other things, Mulino promised to ‘put money in people’s pockets’ and build infrastructure, notably a train linking the city of David, in the far east of the country, with Panama City. This was justified on the grounds that it would improve transport between the interior and capital and stimulate economic development in remote and neglected regions.

  Another recurring theme in Mulino’s campaign was the need to put an end to what was characterised as ‘judicial persecution’. Martinelli’s party contains many people indicted for corruption during his administration. Several of them have been elected to the Central American Parliament, which grants them immunity from prosecution under a treaty that equates their privileges with those of national deputies.

  During the election campaign, the possibility of ‘closing’ the Darién Gap, the border with Colombia, was also mentioned as a way of stemming the flow of migrants through the jungle. However, the feasibility and impact of this measure are unclear. Previous bans aimed at stopping migration have only encouraged clandestine approaches and exacerbated humanitarian problems. The situation in the Darién is complex and need far-reaching solutions.

  These promises were clearly popular with some parts of the public, but their feasibility and potential consequences should be carefully considered.

  Finally, another promise was to ‘help’ former President Martinelli. It is not yet clear what form this help will take. The president-elect has said his government will follow the rule of law, and his first major test will be to resolve the ex-president’s impasse in the Nicaraguan embassy, from where he continues to try to influence national politics.

  What should the new government do to address the country’s key social and economic challenges?

  The new government will have to make critical decisions in a context of deep economic crisis. One of them is to save the social security system.

  Panama is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Informal labour has reached 55 per cent, with 20,000 jobs not recovered since the pandemic. The social security system is on the verge of bankruptcy: it covers 80 per cent of people, but only 30 per cent pay contributions. The pension system now lacks the funds to meet its future obligations and could collapse.

  Economic problems are compounded by falling investment. Public debt has risen to US$49 billion, with no clear investment in infrastructure or job creation. The state is due to make its first major debt payment in three months, but does not appear to have sufficient funds to meet it.

  The president-elect has announced he will seek to form a government of national unity. It is unclear what form this will take, but it’s clear that given the scale of the problems, a coalition government or some form of cross-sectoral cooperation is the only way forward. According to the president-elect’s statements, business would be his natural ally in finding solutions.

  Under what conditions does civil society operate in Panama, and can changes be expected under the new government?

  As elections approached, our small civil society faced a recurring phenomenon: an exodus towards partisan political activity. While some civil society organisations like ours are professionalised – with a board, administrative staff, a budget and defined structures – most rely on volunteers. Traditionally, a reverse exodus from non-winning political parties towards civil society organisations happens after elections.

  In addition, few organisations focus their work on advocacy for civil and political rights and freedoms and democratic governance. Most focus on poverty alleviation or the provision of social services such as health and education. In these roles, they tend to be partners with the state in the implementation of official programmes. In recent years, however, we have witnessed an increase in activism and the formation of new identity-based groups demanding equal rights, while new youth groups have arisen at the national level as a political and social force largely responsible for the success of national mobilisations against open-pit mining in October and November 2023.

  In the 2024 electoral campaign, while civil society participation remained limited, since there are few organisations dedicated to promoting civic values or fundamental freedoms, we saw several non-partisan initiatives to enable informed voting, and several organisations, including us, joined together in this effort.

  We don’t know what will happen under the new government, but we are concerned about the Martinelli administration’s record of restricting civic space through intimidation of critical organisations and the judicial harassment of activists and journalists. It is unclear what trajectory the Mulino government will follow, but we’ll have to stay vigilant and resist any attempt to curtail fundamental rights and freedoms or restrict civic space.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with the Foundation for the Development of Civic Freedom through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow @libertciudadana onInstagram andTwitter.

• Papua New Guinea: Slow progress on reforms and ongoing restrictions to freedom of expression

  CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, is concerned about the slow progress on reforms to protect civic space as well as efforts by Prime Minister James Marape’s government to stifle the media and freedom of expression. These actions, highlighted in a research brief published today, are inconsistent with commitments made by Papua New Guinea (PNG) to the UN Human Rights Council as well as human rights guarantees protected in the Constitution.

  More than two years after the Human Rights Council called for the establishment of a national human rights commission, such a body has yet to be formed. Such an institution is extremely crucial in the promotion and protection of civic freedoms and to ensure accountability. A national human rights institution can also play an important role in protecting human rights defenders in PNG. Human rights defenders continue to face restrictions, threats and reprisals especially those speaking up publicly on land and environmental issues or exposing abuses by the state or private companies.

  “The Marape government must expedite the formation of a national human rights institution in accordance with international standards and ensure the process is undertaken transparently and in consultation with civil society. Such a body will be crucial to ensure the protection of human rights defenders in PNG, many who remain at risk of reprisals for their activism,” said Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia Pacific researcher.

  CIVICUS is also alarmed about increasing restrictions on the media, particularly after Prime Minister Marape’s re-election in August 2022 as well as a proposed National Media Development Policy that could pose significant concerns for press freedom. Further, the government seems to be dragging its feet around the enactment of Right to Information (RTI) legislation, despite guarantees in the Constitution.

  There are also concerns around the continued use of the Cybercrime Act to criminalise online expression. Such criminal defamation provisions are inconsistent with the freedoms guaranteed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - which PNG ratified in 2008 - and creates a chilling effect for those in the media and individuals who chose to speak up.

  “Steps must be taken to ensure that journalists can work freely and without fear of retribution for expressing critical opinions and that any existing or new laws are consistent with international human rights law and standards. The government must also move forward to draft and pass legislation to guarantee the right of everyone to access information”, said Benedict.

  The authorities must also ensure that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is respected and protected and ensure that those responsible for excessive force or unlawful killings of protesters are promptly identified, charged and prosecuted.

  Download the Papua New Guinea research brief here.

  Civic space in Papua New Guinea is rated as Obstructed  by the CIVICUS Monitor

  About the CIVICUS Monitor

  Over twenty organisations collaborate on the CIVICUS Monitor to provide an evidence base for action to improve civic space on all continents. Civic freedoms in 198 countries and territories are categorised as either ‘closed,’ ‘repressed ,’ ‘obstructed ,’ ‘narrowed ’ or ‘open ,’ based on a methodology that combines several data sources on the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression

• PARAGUAY: ‘Very tough years are ahead for civil society that promotes human rights’

  CIVICUS discusses Paraguay’s recent general election with Marta Ferrara, executive director of Seeds for Democracy (Semillas para la Democracia).

  Founded in 2006, Seeds for Democracy is a civil society organisation (CSO) whose main objective is to contribute to the improvement of the quality of democracy in Paraguay by promoting citizen participation, social equity and accountable governance.

  What are Paraguay’s main challenges, and to what extent could the results of the recent election contribute to solving them?

  Paraguay’s main problems are fundamentally economic, stemming from deep inequality. In recent years, Paraguay has had very good macroeconomic indicators, with high growth, but has remained very unequal, with high unemployment, large numbers of people in informal work and lack of access to health, education and opportunities. It is a country run by immensely wealthy cattle-ranching and agro-exporting elites who rule for their own benefit and to the detriment of a terribly unequal society. I believe this is the central characteristic of Paraguayan society and economy. It is a deep, structural problem, and this election has done nothing to solve it. The same people as always have won: the same sectors that have kept the country in this situation for more than 70 years.

  At stake in this election was the possibility of alternation in power. However, that would not necessarily have meant radical change, because the presidential candidate of Concertación, the opposition coalition, was also a conservative, albeit from the Liberal Party. His running mate was a woman, but he still represented a conservative sector of society. These were not disruptive candidacies representing a real change in the way politics is conducted, in the way power is exercised, in terms of public policies or representing different social sectors.

  How do you explain the comfortable win for the Colorado Party, despite the incumbent president’s very low approval rating?

  The results can be explained to a large extent by the effects, which we already anticipated, of the system of unblocked lists with preferential voting in the context of a divided opposition.

  A couple of years ago there was an electoral reform that replaced the closed and blocked party lists with unblocked lists with preferential voting. In these, the voter can select a candidate within the list of their choice, in order to vote for both a party and a candidate; then, according to the number of votes obtained by each candidate and their list, seats are distributed by the D’Hont system.

  This system was introduced in the last municipal elections and we already knew that it would have some negative effects. A big problem with unblocked lists is that generally the candidate with the most money is the one who gets ahead. They also cause strong competition of all against all within parties.

  In addition, the old system was replaced by electronic ballot boxes without sufficient training, meaning that people were not well prepared to use the new system. This allowed the spread of so-called ‘assisted voting’, which is illegal, and which basically consists of having people at polling stations interfering with voting with the excuse of helping voters use the electronic system.

  All this benefited the Colorado Party, which has been at the helm of the state for a long time and is therefore the one with the most resources, and which has sufficient internal diversity to be able to provide replacement options for those who are dissatisfied with their government they lead.

  There were, however, some small improvements in women’s representation. For the first time two women have been elected governors and there are more women than before in both houses of Congress.

  But with the opposition divided, the Colorado Party won by the widest margin in Paraguay’s democratic history. In addition to winning the presidency, it won control of both houses of Congress and 15 of 17 governorships.

  The other defining feature of this election was the emergence of a third opposition political grouping with a populist-authoritarian and messianic style. Led by Paraguayo Cubas, it represents so-called ‘angry voters’, those dissatisfied with traditional parties and the way politics has been conducted for decades. This candidacy did not take votes away from the government but from the opposition, and unexpectedly came in a close third place, with more than 20 per cent.

  What is the basis for the allegations of fraud voiced by protesters?

  The followers of Paraguayo Cubas, joined by people from practically all sectors of the opposition, many of them young people disaffected with politics, have taken to the streets en masse across the country to denounce fraud, despite the fact that their candidate got a very good vote, which they did not expect. The fact that an anti-establishment group is mobilising protests on a scale not seen in a long time represents a major challenge for the future of democracy in Paraguay.

  This was a relatively peaceful election in which there was virtually no violence. What there was plenty of was disinformation, hate speech and social media attacks throughout the campaign. These aggressions strongly affected CSOs, including our own, Seeds for Democracy, and came mostly from the ruling party and the party and supporters of Paraguayo Cubas, although Concertación also launched similar attacks against its political opponents.

  What role did civil society play during the election?

  Civil society played a relatively important role, despite the restrictions it has faced. The Electoral Court initially did not authorise civil society election observation and instead issued a rather restrictive regulation. It finally accepted that the Sakã Consortium, a civil society coalition, would carry out observation and a parallel count, but with very many restrictions.

  Seeds for Democracy has been actively involved in denouncing the problems of political financing, an issue we have succeeded in placing on the agenda. The other major problem in Paraguay, along with enormous inequality, is corruption. Lack of control over money in politics has brought groups linked to organised crime to power, both in Congress and in governors’ offices.

  We will soon be working on political finance control. In Paraguay, campaign spending is controlled after elections. A month later, when the parties submit their statements, we begin to monitor them through the Electoral Court’s Citizen Observatory of Political Financing, cross-checking data on public contracts with the sworn statements published on public agencies’ websites. Paraguay’s freedom of information legislation is quite good and enables us to do this work.

  How do you see the future of democracy in Paraguay?

  In the medium to long term I see a very difficult situation. There are many things to be resolved in order to improve the quality of democracy. The emerging political group is violent, anti-rights, fundamentalist and messianic. Its inspiration is the popular authoritarian president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, and his way of ruling, so I think we are in for some very tough years ahead.

  The section of the Colorado Party that won the election is one whose leaders attack civil society. They are anti-rights: they define themselves as ‘pro-life’, they are against equal marriage and sexual and reproductive rights and they attack all issues related to gender rights. That’s why I think civil society is in for a very tough few years. The various segments of civil society, especially those working on rights issues, are going to have to make big efforts to join together and undertake collective action.

  At the moment, some organisations have some funding from international cooperation sources, and we hope that this support will increase and strengthen so that we can work together to face all these challenges. It will be a constant struggle, all the more difficult because we have already seen attacks against freedom of expression and press freedom.

  I do not expect much in the coming months. For the time being, we must stay vigilant to understand which way things are going. But what is certain is that very tough years are ahead for CSOs that promote human rights.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Seeds for Democracy through theirwebsite orFacebook page, and follow@semillaspy on Twitter.

• Peers and Partners: Empowering Children to take Civic Action

  While threats against civic space are well documented around the world, little is said on how civic space trends are being experienced by children, and how children’s rights and abilities to be active agents for change in their countries and communities are being affected. The report aims to fill that gap by bringing children’s voices to the debate, as well as those of concerned adult civil society activists. The report presents findings from a study conducted in 2016 combining online consultations and face-to-face group discussions with a total of 1,606 children, aged between eight and 17, from 60 countries, and from an online survey carried out with 488 respondents from adult-led civil society from 98 countries.

  Among other findings, the research reveals that:

  • The challenges faced by civil society in general are accentuated for children who seek to engage in civic action and influence public decision-making.
  • Children have the right and the desire to be involved in decision-making, but their potential and ability to contribute to society is being obstructed in many countries.
  • State and intergovernmental institutions must prioritise the creation of spaces and opportunities for children to participate in processes that make decisions on issues that affect them.
  • Adult-led civil society should work to broker new connections between children and policy-makers, and help facilitate meaningful and ethical opportunities for children to participate.

  The brief calls for policy-makers to support children’s civic rights, recognise the benefits of enabling children to exercise their civic rights and their right to participate, and act to unlock these benefits. Improved participation will ultimately lead to better informed and more effective policy.

  Download the Report