COVID-19

UN resolution needed to protect peaceful protests during the pandemic and beyond
Joint statement at the 44th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and peaceful assembly

Madame President, Special Rapporteur,

We thank the Special Rapporteur for his report, and for the work the mandate has done to protect freedom of assembly and association worldwide. These fundamental rights underpin the very existence of civil society.

The report highlights that there have been multiple examples of civil society and social movements across the world galvanizing positive change, defending hard-won democratic values and developing innovative practices to address issues of injustice. People coming together to speak out have won better working conditions, furthered equality, ended forms of oppression.

The benefits of a vibrant civil society, and of human rights defenders who are free to do their work, are tangible. In the past months, we have seen that society is central to crisis response and will continue to be central in building back better. There are so many gains still to come.

States who suppress individuals and groups simply for speaking out willfully deny such enrichment.

In Hong Kong, a sweeping security law imposed by China last week risks destroying its free and open civil society. Protesters have already been criminalized by the law. In India, suppression of peaceful protests against a discriminatory citizenship and arrests of human rights defenders who took part in these meetings represent efforts to silence voices against inequality and injustice. In the USA, Black lives Matter protests against systemic racism and police brutality have been met with state-sanctioned violence, including the deliberate targeting of journalists. In Egypt a systematic crack-down on civil society, human rights defenders and independent journalists has accelerated in the last several months.

The current pandemic has accelerated and exacerbated existing challenges and there are numerous cases of States weaponizing the COVID-19 pandemic against civil society, from Hungary to Algeria to the Philippines.

The rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly are simply the right to organize and mobilise for a fairer, more just world. This session, the Council members have the opportunity to better protect these rights. We urge all States to support the resolution on peaceful protests, and to commit to ensuring space and voice for those who come together to speak out.

Thank you.

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
International Service for Human Rights
East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
FORUM-ASIA
The African Center for Democracy and Human Rights Studies
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

Current council members:

Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Somalia, Sudan, Spain, Togo, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela

Civic space ratings from the CIVICUS Monitor

OPEN NARROWED OBSTRUCTED REPRESSED CLOSED
UN75: ‘Civil society needs to be the conscience of the global community’
To mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations (UN), CIVICUS is having conversations with civil society activists, advocates and practitioners about the roles the UN has played so far, the successes it has achieved and the challenges ahead. CIVICUS speaks to Keith Best, Interim Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy (WFM/IGP), a non-profit, nonpartisan organisation committed to the realisation of global peace and justice through the development of democratic institutions and the application of international law. Founded in 1947, WFM/IGP works to protect civilians from the threat of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; facilitate transparency in governance; increase access to justice; and promote the application of the rule of law.

What kind of relationship has civil society maintained with the UN over its 75-year history?

The relationship of civil society towards the UN has been mostly that of a critical friend throughout its history and WFM/IGP’s experience mirrors that. Often, the feeling has been mutual. I recall vividly when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was UN Secretary-General (UNSG) that in a meeting with civil society organisations (CSOs) he publicly appealed to us all to help him secure the outstanding dues from the USA – which were promptly paid when the US needed support for the Gulf War! Former Executive Director of WFM/IGP, Bill Pace, also wrote that “Kofi Annan was a very important Secretary-General, whom I was fortunate enough to develop both a professional and personal relationship with. Though his legacy is still being debated I think he was committed to standing up against to the big powers and corruption of the principles set out in the charter.” It was through Kofi Annan that the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect was unanimously adopted.

In which ways has the UN made a positive difference?

There is a tendency to think of the UN only in its peacekeeping role and more visible efforts in seeking to maintain world peace while neglecting the less heralded but sometimes more effective work of its agencies. I shall mention only three. Despite the recent controversy over COVID-19, where the main issue may have been its lack of powers and coordination, the World Health Organization (WHO) has achieved lasting success. It was officially established on 7 April 1948 to achieve “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health,” with health being not just the absence of illness or infirmity but the complete physical, mental and social wellbeing of the individual. Its greatest triumph was the eradication of smallpox in 1977; the global efforts that it has led to end polio are now in their final stages. In the past few years, the WHO has also coordinated battles against viral epidemics of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zika in Brazil. It will be a disaster if the USA withdraws from it instead of helping it assert a better warning mechanism and distribution of medicines following a pandemic of which, assuredly, there will be more.

Another unsung hero is the Food and Agriculture Organization, which has done much to enhance the lot of small farmers, conservation and improvement in agricultural methods and report on biotechnologies, among other things. Also the UN Development Programme, founded in 1965, promotes technical and investment cooperation among nations and advocates for change and connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life for themselves; it provides expert advice, training and grants support to developing countries, with increasing emphasis on assistance to the least developed countries. Some of these agencies have been criticised not so much for the work that they do but for the manner and actions of some of their officials. The way in which some are selected is unfinished business for WFM/IGP.

Largely though the work of the UN we now have the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Responsibility to Protect – both major advances. The ICC, building on the recommendations of the International Law Commission and the Nuremberg, Tokyo, Rwanda and Yugoslav tribunals, has enshrined for the first time in history the individual accountability of heads of state and others for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide and, more recently, the crime of aggression. In the colder light of reflective history this will be seen as a major development in global responsibility which, hitherto, had attached only to states but not to individuals. The concept of Responsibility to Protect, endorsed overwhelmingly in 2005 at the UN World Summit – the largest gathering of heads of state and government in history – turned on its head centuries of obligation of the citizen to the state – an obligation not just to pay taxes but, ultimately, to give one’s life – by reversing that responsibility onto the state to protect its citizens. Its potential is to end 400 years of the inviolability of the state to answer to its peers as enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia, while the concept of non-intervention has not survived the last century.

What things are currently not working and would need to change, and how is civil society working to make it happen?

The disappointment, of course, has been the inability of the UN to reform itself effectively from within and, mostly through the major powers having vested interests in maintaining the status quo, rendering itself unfit for purpose in the modern world, exemplified particularly by the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the use or threatened use of the veto. The P5, its five permanent members, still represent the victors of the Second World War, with the People’s Republic of China substituted for Taiwan/Republic of China in 1971, and, until Brexit, two seats held by member states of the European Union. Neither the world’s most numerous democracy, India, nor the third-largest economy, Japan, are there. In recent years the use or threat of use of the veto have made the UN unable to prevent conflict in many situations. In a recent book, Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes, Jennifer Trahan explains that this abuse of power is, in fact, contrary to the spirit and letter of the UN Charter. There is mounting pressure from other states to curtail such abuse, and we hope that a civil society campaign can bring such change to fruition.

Another thing that needs to change is the way in which the UNSG has been appointed, which in the past has been secretive and arguably failed to canvass all suitable candidates. But thanks to the 1 for 7 Billion Campaign, in which WFM/IGP was active alongside many others, including governments, the process by which the UNSG is selected has arguably changed forever, as the previous arrangements conducted by the major powers were wrested away from the UNSC to the UN General Assembly (UNGA). The present UNSG, António Guterres, has frequently praised and supported the new process by which he was selected. This was the result of a number of organisations led by an informal steering committee of Avaaz, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung New York, United Nations Association-UK and WFM/IGP, supported by over 750 CSOs with an estimated reach of over 170 million people, coming together. Many of them are now hoping to breathe new life into a renewed campaign to consolidate and improve on the gains so far. One of the delicate issues is that the original campaign favoured a lengthier single term for UNSGs rather than two potential terms, and this will remain an objective but, hopefully, without the current incumbent thinking it a threat to his own position.

Many are now calling for a review conference under article 109 of the UN Charter, but we should be careful what we wish for. In the current climate dominated by narrow nationalism and populism we might well end up with a watered-down version of the current Charter. Far better to encourage evolutionary and incremental change which is likely to be more long-lasting.

Do you think it is both necessary and possible to make the UN more democratic?

Indeed. The main weaknesses in the UN system are not only the much-needed reform of the UNSC so that its permanent members – and many argue that there should be none or at least no new permanent members – more accurately reflect the economic and diplomatic power in the world but also its often lack of transparency and accountability and the absence of a democratic element, hence the 1 for 7 Billion campaign.

For the foreseeable future the UN is likely to be based on the nation state – the equality of which in the UNGA is one of its more endearing features – but increasingly there is a call for greater democracy to give effect to “we the peoples of the united nations” as opposed to just the governments. Hence the call for the establishment of a UN parliamentary assembly, perhaps created under article 22, which would start not as a legislative body but a scrutineer of the UN and its agencies, given that any attribution of legislative powers would ensure its failure through states’ opposition at the outset. When so many international organisations and treaties have a parliamentary assembly – with varying powers – attached to them, there should be no reason, other than electoral mechanics, why it should not happen at the global level.

What lessons for international cooperation can be drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic? What should change in the aftermath of this crisis?

Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic has concentrated minds, but it remains to be seen whether it is sufficiently cataclysmic to become a main driver for change, of which the stimulus in the past has been world wars. The pandemic has emphasised that we are ‘all in this together’, that an animal-human crossover or the development of a new virus in a remote part of the world can soon translate everywhere, and no national borders will stop it. It has highlighted that the most affected are the already most vulnerable, poorest, most ill-prepared and most medically ill-equipped societies. It is telling that the pharmaceutical companies are teaching ethics to the politicians in the way of equitable distribution of remedies and ensuring that it is not wealth that should determine availability. That is a lesson that has a wider application. It has highlighted the need for enforceable global decisions in the interests of humanity as a whole – a message, again, that has wider relevance in the environmental and climate change context.

Much of the idealism of the 1960s and 1970s, which were exciting times for those of us involved, has been translated into a realism of the current era. There is no harm in that as these matters need to stand up to adverse scrutiny and a hard-nosed approach. Technology has brought home the fact that wars are now fought against civilians and not uniformed soldiers and that cyber attacks on energy and water supplies are more likely to achieve the incapacity of a foe than armaments, which are now so expensive as to be both limited in their sustainability and only useful to those states that can afford them. The world has indeed shrunk to a situation in which we are more likely to know what is happening on the far side than in our neighbour’s home. Through digital means the voices of the people are ever more articulate and widespread and the people want their voices to be heard. Satellite technology enables not only precision take-out of individuals but also the observation of actions down to that level: there are now no places to hide. If used in an accountable way in the furtherance of international justice according to universally accepted norms, such modern technology can be a force for good – but if misused, it can also lead us to destruction.

The challenge of multilateralism today is to spread these messages of interdependence and make clear that, increasingly, to achieve their desires and the aspirations of their citizens states have to work in combination, partnership and common understanding. That realisation in itself will lead inevitably to the need for enforceable mechanisms of managing our climate and our behaviour, in the knowledge that my action will have a reaction elsewhere which is likely to haunt us. Whether it is the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest or the impoverishment of a people through rapacity and failed autocracy, these will impact on the rest of humanity. Poverty destroys markets for manufacturing nations, which then creates instability, resulting in increased expenditure on conflict prevention or resolution. The answer to migratory flows is not encirclement and strengthened borders but addressing the causes of migration in the first place.

We live in the fastest-moving age in history in which still recent certainties become questioned and outmoded. That is disruptive but can also open new opportunities and ways of doing things. In such a political climate the capacity of WFM/IGP and civil society to be the conscience of the global community and to point to a better federalist form of governance, giving voice to the people at the basic level, is greater than ever.

Get in touch with the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy through itswebpage orFacebook profile, and follow@worldfederalist on Twitter.
UN75: “La sociedad civil debe ser la conciencia de la comunidad global”
En conmemoración del 75º aniversario de la fundación de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), CIVICUS está teniendo conversaciones con activistas, personas defensoras y profesionales de la sociedad civil acerca de los roles que la ONU ha desempeñado hasta ahora, los éxitos que ha conseguido y los desafíos que enfrenta de cara al futuro. CIVICUS conversa con Keith Best, Director Ejecutivo interino del Movimiento Federalista Mundial-Instituto de Política Global (WFM/IGP), una organización no partidista sin fines de lucro comprometida con la realización de la paz y la justicia globales a través del desarrollo de instituciones democráticas y la aplicación del derecho internacional. Fundado en 1947, WFM/IGP trabaja para proteger a la población civil de las amenazas del genocidio, los crímenes de guerra y los crímenes contra la humanidad; facilitar la transparencia en la gobernanza; a aumentar el acceso a la justicia; y promover la vigencia del estado de derecho.

¿Qué tipo de relación ha mantenido la sociedad civil con la ONU a lo largo de sus 75 años de historia?

La relación de la sociedad civil con la ONU a lo largo de su historia ha sido principalmente la de un amigo crítico, y así lo refleja la experiencia de WFM/IGP. A menudo, este sentimiento ha sido mutuo. Recuerdo vívidamente que cuando era Secretario General de la ONU (SGNU), en una reunión con organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) Boutros Boutros-Ghali nos pidió que le ayudáramos a lograr que Estados Unidos pagara sus cuotas atrasadas – ¡cosa que hizo en cuanto necesitó apoyo para la Guerra del Golfo! El exdirector ejecutivo de WFM/IGP, Bill Pace, también escribió que “Kofi Annan fue un secretario general muy importante, con quien tuve la suerte de desarrollar una relación tanto profesional como personal. Aunque su legado aún está siendo debatido, creo que tuvo el compromiso de hacer frente a las grandes potencias y plantarse frente a la corrupción de los principios establecidos en la carta”. Fue gracias a Kofi Annan que se adoptó por unanimidad la doctrina de la responsabilidad de proteger.

¿De qué maneras el trabajo de la ONU ha marcado una diferencia positiva?

Hay una tendencia a pensar a la ONU solamente en su rol de mantenimiento de la paz y en sus esfuerzos más visibles para tratar de mantener la paz mundial, descuidando el trabajo, menos celebrado pero a veces más efectivo, que llevan a cabo sus agencias. Mencionaré a solo tres de ellas. A pesar de la reciente controversia en torno del COVID-19, donde los problemas principales parecen haber sido sus limitados poderes y la falta de coordinación, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha logrado un éxito duradero. Fue establecida oficialmente el 7 de abril de 1948 con el fin de “alcanzar para todos los pueblos el grado más alto posible de salud”, entendiendo a la salud no solo como ausencia de enfermedad o dolencia, sino como el bienestar físico, mental y social pleno de cada individuo. Su mayor triunfo fue la erradicación de la viruela en 1977; asimismo, los esfuerzos que ha llevado a cabo a nivel global para poner fin a la poliomielitis se encuentran ahora en sus etapas finales. En los últimos años, la OMS también ha coordinado batallas contra las epidemias virales de Ébola en la República Democrática del Congo y de Zika en Brasil. Será un desastre si Estados Unidos se retira de la organización en vez de ayudarla a implementar un mecanismo de alerta más eficaz y a coordinar la distribución de medicamentos tras una pandemia a la que, seguramente, habrán de seguir otras.

Otro héroe olvidado es la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación, que ha trabajado mucho para mejorar la situación de los pequeños agricultores, la conservación y el mejoramiento de los métodos agrícolas y el conocimiento sobre biotecnologías, entre otras cosas. Además, el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, fundado en 1965, promueve la cooperación técnica y de inversión entre naciones y aboga por el cambio, conectando a los países con el conocimiento, la experiencia y los recursos necesarios para ayudar a las personas a construir una vida mejor para sí mismas; y proporciona asesoramiento especializado, capacitación y subvenciones a los países en desarrollo, con un énfasis cada vez mayor en la asistencia a los países menos desarrollados. Algunas de estas agencias han sido criticadas no tanto por el trabajo que realizan sino sobre todo por la conducta y las acciones de algunos de sus funcionarios. La forma en que algunos de ellos son seleccionados es un asunto pendiente para WFM/IGP.

En gran medida gracias al trabajo de la ONU, se han producido avances importantes como son la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) y la responsabilidad de proteger. Sobre la base de las recomendaciones de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional y los tribunales de Nuremberg, Tokio, Ruanda y Yugoslavia, la CPI ha consagrado por primera vez en la historia la responsabilidad individual de los jefes de estado y otras personas en posición de autoridad por la comisión de delitos de lesa humanidad, crímenes de guerra y genocidio y, más recientemente, el crimen de agresión. A la luz más calma de la mirada retrospectiva, esto será considerado un desarrollo importante en el concepto de responsabilidad global que, hasta ahora, solamente se atribuía a los estados, no a los individuos. El concepto de responsabilidad de proteger, respaldado abrumadoramente en 2005 en la Cumbre Mundial de la ONU, la mayor reunión de jefes y jefas de estado y de gobierno de la historia, dio la vuelta a siglos de obligaciones del ciudadano hacia el Estado- una obligación no solo de pagar impuestos, sino en última instancia de dar la propia vida – para enfatizar su reverso, la responsabilidad del Estado de proteger a sus ciudadanos. Encierra el potencial de poner fin a 400 años de inviolabilidad del Estado para responder a sus pares, consagrada en el Tratado de Westfalia, en tanto que el concepto de no intervención no ha sobrevivido al siglo pasado.

¿Qué cosas no están funcionando actualmente y deberían cambiar, y cómo está trabajando la sociedad civil para que ello ocurra?

Lo decepcionante, por supuesto, ha sido la incapacidad de la ONU para reformarse a sí misma desde dentro de manera efectiva y, sobre todo por efecto del interés de las principales potencias en mantener el statu quo, el hecho de que se ha vuelto inadecuada para cumplir su propósito en el mundo moderno. El mejor ejemplo de ello es el uso o la amenaza de uso del veto en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU (CSNU). El P5, es decir sus cinco miembros permanentes, todavía representan a los vencedores de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, con la salvedad de que en 1971 la República Popular China sustituyó a Taiwán/República de China. Hasta el Brexit, dos escaños eran ocupados por estados parte de la Unión Europea. Ni la democracia más numerosa del mundo, India, ni su tercera economía, Japón, están representadas. En los últimos años, el uso o la amenaza de uso del veto tornaron a la ONU incapaz de prevenir conflictos en una cantidad de situaciones. En un libro reciente, Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes (Límites legales vigentes al poder de veto en el Consejo de Seguridad frente a crímenes atroces), Jennifer Trahan explica que este abuso de poder es, de hecho, contrario al espíritu y a la letra de la Carta de la ONU. Hay una presión cada vez mayor de otros estados para reducir ese abuso, y esperamos que las campañas de la sociedad civil en ese sentido logren que el cambio se materialice.

Otra cosa que debe cambiar es la forma de nombrar al SGNU, que en el pasado ha sido entre bambalinas y posiblemente no lograra sondear a todos los candidatos adecuados. Pero gracias a la Campaña 1 para 7 mil millones, en la que WFM/IGP participó activamente junto con muchos otros actores, gobiernos incluidos, el proceso de selección del SGNU posiblemente haya cambiado para siempre, ya que el espacio donde ocurría, y que permitía la concreción de acuerdos entre las principales potencias, se desplazó desde el CSNU hacia la Asamblea General de la ONU (AGNU). El actual SGNU, António Guterres, ha elogiado y apoyado con frecuencia el nuevo proceso a través del cual fue seleccionado. Este proceso fue el resultado del trabajo conjunto de numerosas organizaciones lideradas por un comité directivo informal integrado por Avaaz, la Fundación Friedrich Ebert-Nueva York, United Nations Association-UK y WFM/IGP, y tuvo el apoyo de más de 750 OSC, con un alcance estimado en más de 170 millones de personas. Muchas de ellas esperan poder insuflar nueva vida a una campaña para consolidar y mejorar los logros obtenidos hasta ahora. Uno de los aspectos delicados es que la campaña original favorecía un mandato único más prolongado para el SGNU en lugar de dos potenciales mandatos; este objetivo seguirá vigente, y con suerte el actual titular del cargo no lo considerará una amenaza para su propia posición.

Muchas organizaciones ahora están reclamando una conferencia de revisión en virtud del artículo 109 de la Carta de la ONU, pero debemos tener cuidado con lo que deseamos. En el clima actual, dominado por el nacionalismo y el populismo cortos de miras, bien podríamos terminar con una versión diluida de la Carta actual. Sería mucho mejor alentar un cambio evolutivo e incremental, que probablemente será más duradero.

¿Considera que es necesario y posible democratizar a la ONU?

Efectivamente. Las principales debilidades del sistema de la ONU reclaman no solo la reforma del CSNU para que sus miembros permanentes - y muchos argumentan que no debería haber ninguno, o al menos que no debería incorporarse ninguno nuevo - reflejen con mayor precisión el poder económico y diplomático en el mundo actual, sino también el abordaje de su frecuente falta de transparencia y rendición de cuentas y la ausencia de un elemento democrático; de ahí la campaña 1 para 7 mil millones.

En el futuro previsible, es probable que la ONU siga basándose en los estados nacionales, cuya igualdad en el seno de la AGNU es una de sus características más entrañables. Sin embargo, hay un reclamo cada vez más fuerte de mayor democracia para realizar el principio de “nosotros, los pueblos de las naciones unidas”, en contraposición con la mera representación de los gobiernos. De ahí el llamamiento al establecimiento de una asamblea parlamentaria de la ONU, quizás creada en virtud del artículo 22, que comenzaría no como un cuerpo legislativo sino como un órgano de monitoreo de la ONU y sus agencias, dado que cualquier atribución de poderes legislativos aseguraría su fracaso porque haría que los estados se opusieran desde el principio. Cuando tantas organizaciones y tratados internacionales incluyen asambleas parlamentarias - con diferentes poderes -, no debería haber ninguna razón, más allá de la mecánica electoral, para que ello no ocurra también a nivel mundial.

¿Qué lecciones para la cooperación internacional se pueden extraer de la pandemia de COVID-19? ¿Qué debería cambiar después de esta crisis?

Sin duda, la pandemia de COVID-19 ha concentrado nuestra atención, pero queda por verse si acaba siendo lo suficientemente cataclísmica como para convertirse en un motor de la clase de cambio que en el pasado fue estimulado por las guerras mundiales. La pandemia ha enfatizado que estamos “todos juntos en esto”, que un cruce animal-humano o el desarrollo de un nuevo virus en una parte remota del planeta pronto puede tener efectos en todas partes y que no habrá frontera que lo detenga. Ha dejado en evidencia que las más afectadas son las sociedades que ya eran más vulnerables, más pobres, peor preparadas y peor equipadas desde el punto de vista sanitario. Resulta revelador que las empresas farmacéuticas estén enseñando ética a los políticos en relación con una distribución equitativa de los medicamentos que asegure que no sea la riqueza lo que determine el acceso. Esta es una lección que tiene una aplicabilidad más amplia. Ha resaltado la necesidad de decisiones globales ejecutables en interés de la humanidad en su conjunto. Se trata, nuevamente, de un mensaje con una relevancia más amplia en el contexto del cambio climático y ambiental.

Gran parte del idealismo de los años sesenta y setenta, que fueron tiempos emocionantes para quienes los vivimos, se ha traducido en el realismo de la era actual. No hay nada de malo en ello, ya que estas cuestiones deben resistir el escrutinio severo. La tecnología ha puesto de manifiesto el hecho de que las guerras ahora se libran contra civiles y no contra soldados uniformados y que los ataques cibernéticos a los suministros de energía y agua tienen más probabilidades de incapacitar al enemigo que los armamentos, que ahora son tan caros que enfrentan limitaciones de sostenibilidad y solo son útiles para los estados que pueden permitírselos. El mundo se ha hecho más pequeño, al punto en que es más probable que sepamos lo que está sucediendo en el otro extremo del mundo que en la casa de nuestro vecino. A través de los medios digitales, las voces de la gente están cada vez más presentes y están mejor articuladas; la gente quiere que se escuche su voz. La tecnología satelital permite no solo la extracción precisa de individuos, sino también la observación de acciones hasta el nivel más elemental: ya no hay donde esconderse. Si se usa de manera responsable para fomentar la justicia internacional en función de normas universalmente aceptadas, esta tecnología moderna puede ser una fuerza para el bien, pero si se usa incorrectamente, también puede conducirnos a la destrucción.

El desafío del multilateralismo en la actualidad es difundir estos mensajes de interdependencia y dejar en claro que, cada vez más, para lograr sus fines y las aspiraciones de sus ciudadanos, los estados deben trabajar juntos, en sociedad y a partir del entendimiento mutuo. Por sí misma, esta comprensión conducirá inevitablemente a la necesidad de mecanismos que puedan ser implementados para gestionar nuestro clima y nuestro comportamiento, sabiendo que la acción de cada cual provocará en otros lugares una reacción que probablemente nos afectará. Ya sea que se trate de la destrucción de la selva amazónica o del empobrecimiento de un pueblo a través de la rapiña y el autoritarismo, el resto de la humanidad resultará afectado. La pobreza destruye los mercados para las naciones industrializadas, lo cual luego produce inestabilidad, la cual a su vez resulta en un mayor gasto en prevención o resolución de conflictos. La respuesta a los flujos migratorios no es el cerco y el fortalecimiento de las fronteras, sino el abordaje de las causas últimas de la migración.

Vivimos en la época más veloz de la historia, donde certezas aún recientes son cuestionadas y dejadas de lado. Eso es disruptivo, pero también puede abrirnos a nuevas oportunidades y formas de hacer las cosas. En semejante clima político, es más importante que nunca la capacidad de WFM/IGP y de la sociedad civil para ser la conciencia de la comunidad global y apuntar a una mejor forma de gobernanza, que sea federalista y permita que se escuche la voz de la gente.

Contáctese con el Movimiento Federalista Mundial-Instituto de Política Global a través de susitio web o su página deFacebook, y siga a@worldfederalist en Twitter.
UNITED STATES: ‘The 2020 election is a political and moral mandate against fascism’
CIVICUS speaks about voter suppression and its implications for US democracy with Yael Bromberg, Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at The Andrew Goodman Foundation, an organisation thatworks to make the voices of young people – one of the most underrepresented voter groups in the USA – a powerful force for democracy. The Foundation was set up in 1966 to carry on the spirit and the purpose of Andy Goodman, who in 1964 joined Freedom Summer, a project aimed at registering Black Americans to vote to dismantle segregation and oppression, and who was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan on his first day in Mississippi. The Foundation supports youth leadership development, voting accessibility and social justice initiatives in almost a hundred higher learning institutions across the country.

It is confusing for outside observers to see a country that promotes itself as the paragon of democracy put barriers that limit the right to vote of millions of its citizens. Can you tell us more about voter suppression in the USA?

It's true that the USA has promoted itself as a beacon of democracy. As an immigrant and naturalised citizen whose grandparents survived the Holocaust and Soviet gulags, I appreciate some of the unique freedoms that are afforded in this country. For example, while our judicial system is currently under serious threat due to the politicisation and polarisation of the bench, it has generally withstood the type of corruption that is embedded in other countries. While our legal system is fraught and certain norms like extremist police impunity need to be tackled, our congressional system is able, if willing, to fill the gaps left by the judiciary. While big money, including dark money, has radically swamped our politics, serious advocates who have withstood far worse teach us that democracy is a long persistent journey and not a destination. Yes, we have systemic issues in this country that need serious repair, and real lives suffer due to the dysfunction of the tyranny of a minority. But we also have the founding American principles of freedom, liberty, and equality, and the possibility of fulfilling our ideal.

At this nation’s founding, only property-owning white men had the right to vote. Through the constitutional ratification process, slavery was abolished and freed men were enfranchised. Unjust laws persisted, such as literacy tests and poll taxes for racial minorities to prevent them from voting. This was coupled with other Jim Crow laws that created arbitrary reasons to imprison freed slaves and force them back into labour camps, and to disenfranchise them upon release. Popular resistance grew as the physical and political violence of Jim Crow segregation was laid bare in the 1960s, leading to stronger laws and new constitutional amendments.

Voter suppression today is the equivalent of the fox guarding the henhouse. Those who are privileged enough to define the laws determine who is in and who is out. For example, strict voter identification laws that go above and beyond standard proof of identification swept the nation after the election of President Obama. Alabama enacted strict voter identification, and then shut down driver licence offices where one could obtain such IDs throughout large rural sections of the state where Black people reside. Politicians draw district lines in efforts to secure their own party’s future, and their personal future bids for office. Polling places are not readily available on college campuses where young people are concentrated. Even during a global pandemic, vote-by-mail is not a universal right for all. While one state, New Jersey, offers at least 10 droboxes per town to collect vote-by-mail ballots, another, Texas, litigated the matter successfully to limit droboxes to only one per county. To make matters worse, when these laws are litigated, the courts do not always rule on behalf of the voters.

This 2020 election season has been particularly startling. The federal judiciary seems obsessed with the idea that last-minute changes to election rules lead to voter suppression, even where the law expands access to the ballot. This defies logic. If the law limits access, that is one thing. However, if the law simply expands access, the harm to voters is unclear.

The natural question that emerges from our paradigm is: if America truly is a beacon for democracy, then why are we so afraid to embrace the first three words in our Constitution – “We the People”?

Was voter suppression a crucial issue in the context of the 2020 presidential election?

Absolutely. The 2020 presidential election reveals at least five significant takeaways: 1) Our state governments are readily able to safely expand access to the ballot, including by extending early voting periods and vote by mail opportunities; 2) Voters across partisan lines take advantage of these mechanisms, and benefit from them, as demonstrated by the record-breaking voter turnout this year; 3) Expansion and election modernisation do not lead to voter fraud; 4) Voters were motivated to vote this year despite the discriminatory and arbitrary obstacles that were put in their way; 5) The myth of voter fraud, rather than actual systemic evidence of it, has emerged as a significant threat both to protecting access to the ballot and public confidence in our election systems.

In 2013, the Supreme Court eviscerated a key sunshine provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That safeguard mandated that states with a demonstrated history of voter suppression must get approval before changing their election laws. With the safeguard eliminated, the floodgates to voter suppression were open. The number of polling places shrank: 1,700 polling places were shut down between 2012 and 2018, including over 1,100 between the 2014 and 2018 midterm elections. Strict voter identification laws were passed, making it harder for poor people, people of colour and young people to vote. Other measures like the purging of state voter rolls and the rezoning of election districts further diluted voting power. It’s important to note that all of this happens on the back of the taxpayers – they foot the bill for the backlogged judiciary and the prevailing party’s litigation fees, and on the back of voters – they are forced to accept the results of a rigged election system even though the voter suppression law might be overturned in the future.

The thin, fake trumpet of voter fraud has caused a clamping down on rights across the board. There was no reason why, especially amid a pandemic, access to vote-by-mail should not be universal. Yet, eight states only allowed voters over a certain age to vote by mail, but not younger voters. The pandemic does not discriminate, and neither should our electoral system. Similarly, the United States Postal Service was suddenly politicised as it became increasingly obvious that voters would be voting by mail at unprecedented rates. Discussions were renewed about its privatisation, and expensive mail sorting machines were ordered to be dismantled for no reason other than to suppress the vote. In the wake of the election, the Trump campaign has done much harm to delegitimise the results, even though not one shred of evidence of voter fraud was revealed in the over 50 lawsuits challenging the outcome of the election. This has been an extraordinary disservice to the country, as it has convinced a substantial base within one political party to question the outcome of an election that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has declared “the most secure in American history.”

As all of this has taken place, the pandemic has also driven an expansion of access in key respects. Even some Republican-led states demonstrated leadership in expanding the early voting period and access to vote-by-mail systems. We must use this as a learning opportunity to push for common sense election modernisation, so it is not a pandemic-related, one-off thing. COVID-19 has normalised election modernisation from a fringe progressive issue to a mainstream one that empowers voters across the political spectrum. Moreover, while the Trump campaign’s endless unsubstantiated lawsuits may play to a certain base of voters, one wonders if they will cause the judiciary to be finally convinced that voter fraud is not pervasive. This is important because invariably, we will see voter suppression state laws introduced in the wake of this election, just as we saw following the 2008 Obama election, and they will certainly lead to legal challenges. Perhaps the courts will respond to such challenges differently this time around in light of the audit of the 2020 race.

As much as voter suppression was present this cycle, the response was to overwhelm the system with voter engagement. As expected, election turnout was unprecedentedly high. Initial estimates indicate that youth turnout was even higher this cycle than when the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971 and the base of newly eligible voters suddenly expanded. We simply cannot afford the voter apathy that we have seen in years past. In 2016, there were wins by razor-thin margins in three key states: Michigan, by 0.2 per cent, Pennsylvania, by 0.7 per cent and Wisconsin, by 0.8 per cent. Voter suppression can certainly be called into question with these types of slim margins. However, we cannot forget the power of voting: about 43 per cent of the eligible voter population did not vote in 2016. Current estimates indicate that approximately 34 per cent of the eligible voter population – about one in three voters – did not participate in 2020. How do we maintain this new record-setting voting rate, and even improve upon it, once fascism is no longer on the ballot?

Can you tell us about the work done by The Andrew Goodman Foundation on the intersection of the two major issues of voting rights and systemic racism?

The Andrew Goodman Foundation’s mission is to make young voices and votes a powerful force in democracy. Our Vote Everywhere programme is a national nonpartisan civic engagement and social justice movement led by young people on campuses across the country. The programme provides extensive training, resources and a peer network, while our Andrew Goodman Ambassadors register young voters, break down voting barriers and tackle important social justice issues. We are on nearly 100 campuses across the nation, and maintain a diverse docket of campuses, including People of Color Serving Institutions such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

What is powerful about youth organising and voting is that it crosses all lines – sex, race, national origin and even partisanship. This was born out of the history of the expansion of the youth vote in 1971, when the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, thereby lowering the voting age to 18 and outlawing age discrimination in access to the franchise. It was the quickest amendment to be ratified in US history, in large part due to its nearly unanimous support across partisan lines. There was a recognition that young voters help safeguard the moral compass of the country, as recognised by then-President Richard Nixon during the ceremonial signing of the amendment.

Andrew Goodman’s legacy is directly tied to solidarity struggles among and between communities for the betterment of the whole. Throughout the 1960s, Black college students in the south courageously sat at white-owned lunch counters in political protest for integration and equality. In May 1964, young Americans from across the country migrated south during Freedom Summer to register Black voters and overturn Jim Crow segregation. Three young civil rights workers were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan with the help of the county sheriff’s office: Andy Goodman and Mickey Schwerner, both Jewish men from New York who were only 20 and 24 years old, and James Chaney, a Black man from Mississippi who was only 21 years old. Their stories struck a public chord that helped galvanise support for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It is a story about the power of young visionaries fighting for their futures, allyship, and about the power of what can be accomplished when Americans from different backgrounds come together in unity.

Young activists led various social justice movements of the 1960s, just as they do today. When this country responded and enacted critical reforms, young people finally turned to their own enfranchisement as they were being sent to their graves early in endless war in Vietnam. Today, young people are leading the call for climate justice, for gun control, for human dignity for our Black and immigrant communities, and for affordable higher education. They have the most to gain and lose in our elections, because it is they who inherit the future. They recognise, particularly in light of the nation’s changing demographics, that the issue of youth voting rights is a racial justice issue. The more that we can look to the youth vote as a unifier – because all voters were young once – the more we can hope to inject some common sense into a contested and polarised system.

Civic space in the USA is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the Andrew Goodman Foundation through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@AndrewGoodmanF and@YaelBromberg on Twitter.
Upholding fundamental rights is crucial for global crisis response
Joint Statement at the 44th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Madame High Commissioner,

Thank you for your timely report. This is a statement on behalf of the Civic Space Initiative, including CIVICUS, Article 19, ICNL, ECNL and the World Movement for Democracy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated existing challenges to civic freedoms.

The CIVICUS Monitor shows that it has exacerbated the ongoing use of restrictive laws; restrictions on funding; reprisals, attacks and acts of intimidation; the ongoing violent repression of mass mobilisations for change; and the wilful exclusion of civil society from decision making processes. It has provided cover for executive overreach and spurred new growth in the use of surveillance technologies. According to ICNL-ECNL’s Civic Freedom Tracker, at least 145 countries have enacted 280 measures in response to COVID that further affect civic freedoms and human rights.

But it has also revealed the centrality of civil society in crisis response: in providing critical information and services to communities, running feeding schemes and health screenings, providing aid and monitoring abuses.

Civil society has again proved itself to be an integral stakeholder. And time of crisis is a time of opportunity. As has been so often said, this is the time to build back better.

We have seen many examples of good practice to draw on. Several States are developing specialised online platforms for better consultation on emergency measures. Others are establishing oversight bodies inviting the public to share views on the measures governments have taken, or conducting surveys to gauge public response on government handling of the crisis.

We call on all States, in their response to the crisis, to:
1. Create avenues for inclusive participation and feedback and reach out to those most at risk and those most likely to be excluded.
2. Ensure transparency and access to information to enable civil society to respond with the most accurate information available.
3. Ensure that existing channels of civil society participation, at local, national and international levels are maintained – and possibly expanded – in the COVID-19 context.
4. Undertake thorough human rights impact assessments to ensure that measures and actions in response to the crisis do not infringe human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We have seen time and time again positive change emerge when people are able to organize, speak out and take action. A strong and vibrant civil society is a core pillar of a thriving democracy. We must not allow emergency responses to undermine democratic gains.
Urgent call to release 19 detained members of the LGBTI community in Uganda
CIVICUS calls on the Ugandan authorities to release 19 members of the LGBTI community who have been arrested on trumped up charges, under the pretext of curbing the spread of COVID-19.

All 19 have been charged with, “committing a negligent act likely to spread the infection of disease,” and, “disobedience of lawful orders.” However, the Ugandan authorities have a history of targeting members of the LGBTI community:

“The Ugandan authorities have a track record of targeting LGBTI activists and subjecting them to arbitrary arrest and detention. The arrests have nothing to do with violating COVID-19 social distancing rules, but are based on the state’s prejudice against the LGBTI community – this has been the case even before the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no justification for these arrests and the activists should be released immediately,” says Mawethu Nkosana, LGBTI Advocacy & Campaigns Lead, CIVICUS.

“Detention centres and jails are congested places where the virus can easily spread. As we work together to curb the impact of COVID-19, we call for the immediate release of the 19 activists – they are at risk of contracting the virus and are not guilty of any crime.”

Background

On 29 March 2020, the Ugandan authorities raided the premises of Children of the Sun Foundation (COSF), an NGO in Kyengera, Wakiso district. This is a shelter for the LGBTI community. The authorities arrested 23 individuals and charged 19 for allegedly violating rules which prevent large gatherings to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Four of those arrested, including a nurse at the shelter, were released on medical grounds. Restrictions on movement imposed by the Ugandan authorities on 30 March to curb the spread of the virus have hindered access to lawyers of the accused. Even when special permission was sought, on some occasions prison authorities prevented lawyers from accessing the detained activists.

For more information on civic space violations, visit the Uganda country page on theCIVICUS Monitor.
Voici ce que nous réalisons grâce à nos efforts en réponse à la pandémie COVID-19
Mise à jour de la Secrétaire Générale

Chers membres et alliés de CIVICUS,

Cette période a été particulièrement tumultueuse, tant pour la société civile que pour le monde dans son ensemble. Bien que l'urgence mondiale déclenchée par la pandémie rende difficile toute réflexion sur des temps plus calmes, cette mise à jour comprend certains processus plus larges pertinents pour notre stratégie qui ont progressé au cours des derniers mois, ainsi qu'un résumé de certains résultats immédiats que nous obtenons grâce à nos mesures de lutte contre la pandémie COVID-19.

Quels sont les résultats de nos efforts face au COVID-19?

Comme pour la plupart des autres organisations dans le monde, nos efforts se sont concentrés sur une réponse significative à la pandémie du COVID-19. Nos initiatives ont donc été organisées autour de (i) La sécurité et le soutien du personnel (ii) La coordination avec les membres, les partenaires et les donateurs (iii) Le plaidoyer sur les priorités de l'espace civique et des droits de l'homme (iv) L'action conjointe pour traiter des questions systémiques plus larges.

Les principaux éléments à cet égard sont les suivants:
- • Une "équipe de réponse au COVID-19" interne a travaillé ensemble dès les premiers jours de mars pour assurer la continuité du travail et des systèmes de soutien adaptés au contexte pour le personnel de CIVICUS. Les résultats de cet effort comprennent l'équipement des collègues pour travailler à distance, le transfert des engagements planifiés vers des espaces virtuels, la négociation des réalisations et des calendriers de subventions avec les principaux donateurs et l'utilisation des connaissances des membres et des pairs sur les réponses à une situation en évolution rapide. Compte tenu des conséquences sanitaires et économiques persistantes de la pandémie, nous avons pris des mesures en vue de la mise en œuvre du "Protocole de sécurité sociale COVID-19" et avons prolongé jusqu'en septembre 2020 notre moratoire sur les voyages et les événements en personne pour le personnel et les partenaires.
- Notre première intervention extérieure a consisté à renforcer la nécessaire flexibilité et réactivité des donateurs, conformément à l'accent que nous mettons sur les ressources et la durabilité de la société civile. Notre Lettre ouverte aux donateurs a été publiée le 19 mars, et a été suivie de réunions de sensibilisation ciblées avec un éventail de réseaux de donateurs et de développement. Dans le cadre de cet effort, nous avons étendu le Fonds de solidarité de CIVICUS pour couvrir les demandes liées au COVID-19 et nous continuons à travailler avec nos alliés du mouvement #ShiftThePower pour nous assurer que les donateurs internationaux apportent un soutien indispensable aux organisations locales du Sud pendant cette période.
- Conformément à l'accent que nous mettons sur la protection de l'espace civique et des droits de l'homme, nous avons publié le 24 mars une déclaration exhortant les États à placer les droits de l'homme au cœur de leur réponse. Cette déclaration a été suivie d'un compte rendu du CIVICUS Monitor sur les restrictions et les attaques contre la société civile qui ont été enregistrées depuis que la pandémie a été déclarée. Le 16 avril, nous avons également lancé une lettre ouverte aux dirigeants du monde entier décrivant 12 actions clés nécessaires pour protéger l'espace civique et les droits de l'homme. Cette lettre a reçu plus de 600 soutiens en moins d'une semaine après son lancement, et servira de base à nos efforts de sensibilisation auprès des gouvernements.
- Conformément à notre volonté d'agir conjointement sur les défis structurels, nous avons lancé un appel en faveur d'un "Protocole de sécurité sociale pour la société civile" le 7 avril, en accord avec le cadre politique du COVID-19 de l'OIT. Ce protocole a été adopté par près de 200 organisations, dont la plupart sont des organisations locales du Sud disposant de ressources limitées. Ces efforts renforcent notre discours plus large sur les changements systémiques sur lesquels la société civile et la société en général doivent agir dans le cadre de l'effort nécessaire pour reconstruire les sociétés et les économies à la suite du COVID-19. Nous sommes engagés dans l'élaboration et le soutien des réponses internationales à la pandémie via une coordination étroite avec les mécanismes des Nations unies à Genève et à New York ainsi qu'avec la plate-forme régionale émergente pour les priorités politiques du COVID-19 en Afrique.
Agir suite à notre révision de la stratégie à mi-parcours

L'année dernière, nous avons consacré beaucoup d'énergie à l'examen des progrès réalisés dans le cadre de notre stratégie. L'examen de la stratégie à mi-parcours a débouché sur 18 recommandations clés qui ont été mises en œuvre par un processus de délibération et de planification au sein du Secrétariat, du conseil d'administration et des membres. Notre réponse consolidée de la direction à la révision de la stratégie a été publiée le 17 mars 2020 et servira de base à nos plans annuels pour la deuxième moitié de la période de la stratégie, ainsi qu'au processus de planification de la prochaine stratégie qui sera lancée en 2021.

Tout en reconnaissant qu'une part importante de nos efforts cette année devra être réorientée pour répondre aux défis que la pandémie pose à l'espace civique et à la société civile, nous comptons continuer à investir de l'énergie dans les domaines de travail liés à la révision à mi-parcours qui témoignent de notre capacité à renforcer l'aptitude de l'alliance CIVICUS à organiser les forces et à influencer le changement par des moyens nouveaux et plus innovants.

Améliorer notre responsabilité

Notre 11ème rapport annuel de responsabilisation (pour 2018/19) est maintenant en ligne. Les commentaires reçus du Comité d'Examen Indépendant comprennent la reconnaissance des efforts déployés pour assurer une responsabilité dynamique, notamment en ce qui concerne les parties prenantes, les partenariats et l'apprentissage. Les recommandations d'amélioration portent notamment sur le renforcement des systèmes de suivi des dépenses pour la réalisation des objectifs stratégiques, ainsi que sur la gestion de nos systèmes de retours d'information. Ce sont deux domaines auxquels nous prêterons attention cette année.

Nous nous réjouissons de la poursuite de votre engagement et de vos réflexions dans les mois à venir.

Solidairement,
Lysa John
Secrétaire Générale, CIVICUS
(Johannesbourg, Afrique du Sud)
We are in this together, don’t violate human rights while responding to COVID-19

As governments are undertaking extraordinary measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, we recognise and commend the efforts states are making to manage the well-being of their populations and protect human rights, such as the rights to life and health. However, we urge states to implement these measures in the context of the rule of law: all responses to COVID-19 must be evidence-based, legal, necessary to protect public health, non-discriminatory, time-bound and proportionate.
We are tired, so we must take turns to rest: Women's advocacy during crisis

Source: Wikicommons

By Masana Ndinga-Kanga, the Crisis Response Fund Lead and Advocacy Officer for the Middle East/North Africa region at CIVICUS

In recognising how moments of crisis heighten already existing inequalities, it is worth reflecting on how women activists have been able to conduct advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this time, as advocacy meetings have predominantly moved online within the context of a gendered digital divide, the consequences for women activists and their ability to work are yet to be fully understood.

Read on Advocacy Accelerator
Women’s groups fight back as gender-based violence surges during the pandemic
By Inés Pousadela

Barely weeks into the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns arose about the safety of women trapped indoors with their abusers, and data showing spikes in gender-based violence (GBV) quickly reached the news headlines. But women’s rights organizations all over the world had already anticipated the worst. They knew that economic downturns, natural disasters, and disease outbreaks tend to have disproportionate impacts on women — women would experience the effects first, worst, and for longer. For decades their work had focused on the ways in which decisions made by governments, and government failures, disproportionately impact women, and they realized right away that this pandemic would be no exception.

Read more: Women's Media Center
YEMEN: ‘Women are completely absent from decision-making bodies; politically we don’t exist’
CIVICUS speaks about gender inequalities in Yemen and the role of Yemeni civil society in tackling them with Bilkis Abouosba, founder and chairperson of the Awam Foundation for Development and Culture, a civil society organisation (CSO) founded in 2008 to support women’s political participation. Bilkis Abouosba is former vice-chair of the Supreme National Authority for Combatting Corruption in Yemen.

What impact has the COVID-19 pandemic had on women and girls in Yemen?

Yemeni society had been going through a terrible humanitarian crisis since 2015, when war broke out, resulting in unprecedented numbers of casualties and refugees and millions of displaced people. The pandemic only added fuel to the fire. The war had already had a catastrophic effect on the education and healthcare sectors, among others, and the pandemic made the situation worse. It impacted on society at large, but specifically on women.

Due to the war, women’s political participation in decision-making bodies decreased; for the first time, relevant political bodies had no female representatives at all. Politically, Yemeni women do not exist, as they are completely absent from the decision-making process. This preannounced a bleak future for Yemeni women.

Many female political leaders had to flee the country. On the positive side, it has been noted that women’s participation in online events has risen despite Yemen’s poor internet infrastructure and frequent power cuts. The internet has offered Yemeni women, especially those living in rural areas, a venue to participate and express their views around peacebuilding. First, it helped break down societal barriers on women’s participation in political events, and then it helped bypass pandemic-related restrictions on gatherings. The internet brings the world closer to Yemeni women and Yemeni women closer to the world.

On the economic front, after war began many women became their families’ primary breadwinners, but when the pandemic broke out many lost their jobs or could not go to their workplaces. Moreover, enforcement of COVID-19 regulations was selective and discriminated against women. For instance, hair salons for women had to close but their counterparts for men remained open, which negatively affected female owners of small businesses.

How has civil society, and Awam Foundation more specifically, supported Yemeni women during the pandemic?

In the absence of government policies to help people cope with the pandemic – especially in the north of Yemen, where public officials didn’t even acknowledge the reality of COVID-19 – many lost their lives. But CSOs immediately stepped in and played a significant role. Many women-led CSOs, including Awam Foundation, launched COVID-19 awareness campaigns and distributed facemasks among locals and people living in rural areas.

In the early months of the pandemic, CSOs shifted their focus into combatting COVID-19. They relied heavily on online communication to reach affected communities. I was part of an international group fighting COVID-19 that registered available Yemeni doctors for consultation inside the country as well as abroad.

What are the main women’s rights issues in Yemen? What would need to happen for them to be tackled effectively?

In my opinion, our biggest loss is in the area of political rights and participation in political decision-making processes and opinion formation. For the first time in 20 years, the current Yemeni government was formed with a total absence of women. Women’s exclusion has spread further across sectors, including in peacebuilding efforts.

Political negotiations between rival groups have been held without female representation. Only one woman took part in the last round of negotiations in Stockholm, which resulted in an agreement brokered by the United Nations (UN) between the Yemeni government and the Houthi group Ansar Allah.

But public opinion polls on the peace process have in fact included a small sample of Yemeni women, and since 2015 both UN Women and the office of the UN special envoy have created mechanisms for Yemeni women’s inclusion, such as the Yemeni Women’s Pact for Peace and Security (known as ‘Tawafuq’), a consultative mechanism consisting of a group of 50 women consultants, and a group established in 2018 comprising eight women, among them me, also aimed at channelling female voices to international society. However, neither the current nor former UN special envoys have made use of these groups to bridge gender gaps, as planned. Women are still not part of UN-supported peace negotiations.

Despite this, several feminist coalitions have been formed during the transition period, including the Women Solidarity Network, which I played a key role in establishing. These coalitions succeeded at transmitting women’s voices to international organisations, including the UN Security Council. We advocate for the implementation of UN Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security in the Yemeni context. This means that women must be included as equal partners in any upcoming round of peace negotiations.

The government just made a step forward concerning the implementation of UN Resolution 1325. On 8 March the Minister of Social Affairs and Labour announced the institutional structure and terms of reference of a national plan to implement the Resolution.

But overall, we are still concerned about setbacks on women’s rights in Yemen. Women cannot move freely anymore; they’re required to have a male companion to move from one place to another or to apply for a passport.

What would need to happen for gender inequality to reduce in Yemen?

International organisations can significantly help narrow the gender gap in Yemen by bringing Yemeni women to the negotiation table. As a result, women’s participation in the political process will grow in the post-conflict period.

As CSOs we are doing our part by holding workshops on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security. In 2021, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women discussed Yemen’s report – a report Awam Foundation contributed to, and which revealed huge gender inequalities. We are now developing mechanisms aimed at narrowing these gaps.

Although political rivals continue to refuse to integrate women until after the war ends, we continue working in this regard. On International Women’s Day, we highlighted the need to include women in the peace process and shed light on the toll of gender-based violence on Yemeni women. I am sure our efforts will finally start to pay off.

Civic space in Yemen is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Awam Foundation for Development and Culture through its website or its Facebook page, and follow @FoundationAwam on Twitter.
ZAMBIA: ‘Our aim is to break societal biases against girls’
CIVICUS speaks about the upcoming International Women’s Day and Zambian civil society’s role in advancing women’s and girls’ rights with Pamela Mateyo andMwape Kapepula, co-founders of WingEd Girls.

Founded in 2021, WingEd Girls is a civil society organisation (CSO) focused on distributing sanitary materials and teaching girls in underprivileged communities how to make reusable pads, while educating them on personal and menstrual hygiene and mentoring them through post school career paths and choices.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on Zambian women and girls?

The restrictions that the pandemic brought, confining people in their homes, greatly contributed to a rise in domestic and gender-based violence (GBV). Compared to 2019, the cases reported in 2020 increased by over 1,000 cases, affecting mostly women and children.

The pandemic also led to many businesses closing. Many of those were informal businesses dedicated to planning events or catering, thrift clothes shops, restaurants and marketplace stalls. Many were owned and run by women. As a result, households led by women were left in a very vulnerable position, often unable to access basic needs.

At the start of the pandemic schools closed, leading to an increase in rape cases of girls staying at home. By the time schools reopened, many girls couldn’t go back because they were either pregnant or getting married, while others simply dropped out. In addition, focus on COVID-19 reduced access by women and girls to basic healthcare, including maternal care, HIV treatment and sexual and reproductive health care.

How have civil society in general, and WingEd Girls in particular, responded to this situation?

CSOs like World Vision worked in partnership with the government to ensure that while schools were closed children were still engaged in schoolwork, for instance by sponsoring radio and television programmes that taught children basic subjects.

We founded WingEd Girls in the middle of the pandemic to respond to very urgent needs. But this also brought many challenges. The work we do depends on interaction with girls. However, as the number of people that could gather was restricted, it was very hard to reach out to schools and communities. To be able to do our work, we secured bigger spaces and engaged more peer educators to work with smaller groups of girls in breakout group sessions.

The pandemic also made it difficult for us to get the funding we needed to conduct outreach and purchase sanitary materials for distribution. This was partly because prices increased, and also because we had to spend money on additional items, such as sanitisers, masks and handwash soap. Most of our donors also faced financial challenges and couldn’t donate as much as they would like, and this is a challenge we continue to face.

For schools to reopen, a lot of CSOs, church-affiliated organisations such as the Salvation Army and local businesses donated hand sanitisers, masks, handwashing basins and soap. We helped ensure girls had access to basic needs to remain in school.

Civil society also called on the government to lessen restrictions on public interactions so that small businesses could reopen as well.

What are the main women’s rights issues in Zambia and how is civil society tackling them?

Some major women’s and girls’ rights issues in Zambia are GBV, economic inequality and unequal access to quality education.

According to African Impact, only about 31 per cent of girls in Zambia finish primary school, and only eight per cent complete secondary school. This is partly attributed to early marriages and pregnancies, but also to challenges such as lack of access to menstrual hygiene management products and facilities, especially in rural schools.

Low levels of literacy make girls more vulnerable as they grow into women. Most of them don’t understand the rights they have as women, especially those concerning sexual and reproductive health.

This also contributes to a lack of financial independence, which in turn makes women more susceptible to GBV. Limited education means limited access to business opportunities and funding. Many women are not able to draft a business plan, which is required to get a loan. Most lending institutions also require collateral, which most women don’t have, as they typically don’t own property. All this puts them at an economic disadvantage and increases their vulnerability.

There is a cultural trend for women to get just the bare minimum level of education and then become homemakers. Systems are not built to accommodate even the few who may want to take a different path.

Civil society works with government and communities to tackle these issues and bridge these gaps. Many CSOs, including WingEd Girls, support girls in different ways so they stay in school. We have a project to train girls to make reusable pads. The Salvation Army drills boreholes and builds toilets in rural schools. Copper Rose Zambia teaches girls about menstrual hygiene management and sensitises women on GBV and sexual and reproductive health and rights. Other CSOs, such as Africa Leadership Legacy, help women acquire business, financial and leadership skills. These efforts have inspired the government to take further action to support women and girls, and there are now government programmes to empower women, encourage women to establish businesses and provide greater access to education, especially in rural areas.

How can gender equality be achieved in Zambia and what is being done to that effect?

At WingEd Girls we believe that for real change to happen there needs to be an intentional change in direction, especially by the government. There is a need to mainstream gender policies and create awareness among girls and women of their rights.

Some policies to that effect already exist, but institutions seem to lack the motivation to implement them. Other policies are non-existent, and the government must put them in place. Policies around land ownership, access to education, gender-specific healthcare and access to business opportunities and financial assistance should be mainstreamed. Specific budget lines should be established to ensure an equal access to resources. More awareness programmes are needed to help women and girls learn about their rights and ways to access resources or assistance.

As GBV rose, church bodies and CSOs such as Zambia National Women’s Lobby have called on the government to take quick action. The government responded by promising it would establish fast-track courts for GBV cases, put in place policies and legislation to combat GBV and build shelters for GBV victims within communities. They in turn called on civil society to join in efforts to ensure anti-GBV services were made easily available for victims or potential victims.

To keep girls in schools, the government has recently included funding in the national budget to distribute sanitary towels in all schools across the country. But this has not made civil society stop its own work in that regard. WingEd Girls and other CSOs see a potential for partnering with the government and will continue to distribute menstrual hygiene management resources to girls.

To support female-led households, the government has partnered with the World Bank. Through a World Bank-funded project, Girls’ Education and Women’s Empowerment and Livelihood, it will help women access seed money to start businesses and access farm inputs. Lending institutions are also being encouraged to re-evaluate their loan access requirements to accommodate more women.

The International Women’s Day (IWD) theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How have you organised around it in the communities you work with?

For IWD we organised a school outreach in a rural district of Zambia’s Southern Province. We moved it to 11 March because 8 March is a holiday and children will be off school that day. As usual, the event will include menstrual health hygiene talks and career mentorship sessions. We will distribute WingEd kits’,a package containing reusable and disposable pads, underwear, washing soap, and painkillers.

We have partnered with several organisations, including Africa Leadership Legacy, which will conduct talks about leadership and financial skills, and Toy-lab, an organisation led by a group of medical doctors who will talk about menstrual hygiene management. To inspire the girls with business ideas, a local business leader will also come to talk to the girls. Peer educators from Mike’s New Generation Version will also be part of the team.

Our aim is essentially to break the bias that society and communities have against girls, starting with access to education and career choices. In line with Sustainable Development Goal 4, we want to ensure girls have access to quality education despite the various challenges they face, including menstruation. We hope the mentorship we provide will enable them to choose career paths based on their passions and interests.

They shouldn’t have to choose a career because it is deemed suitable or ‘easy’ enough for a girl. What they really need is help to overcome challenges and exposure to information about the variety of career options available to them.

Civic space in Zambia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with WingEd Girls through itsFacebook andInstagram pages.