conflict

• ARMENIA: ‘As people leave their homes in search of safety, humanitarian organisations must support their basic needs’

  CIVICUS speaks about the civil society humanitarian response to the Azerbaijani blockade and military offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh – the disputed territory within Azerbaijan that until recently was governed by ethnic Armenians – withShushanik Nersesyan,Media and Communication Manager at People in Need (PIN) Armenia.

  Founded in 1992 bya group of journalists involved in the 1989 Czechoslovak ‘Velvet Revolution’, PIN is a civil society organisation (CSO) working in the fields of humanitarian aid, human rights, education and social work. Since it was established in 2003, its permanent office in Armenia has worked to strengthen Armenian people’s abilities to improve their lives and the communities they live in.

  How did the Azerbaijani blockade affect people in Nagorno-Karabakh?

  It all started in December 2022, when Azerbaijani civilians identifying themselves as environmental activists began obstructing the Lachin corridor, which links Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. In April 2023 Azerbaijan set up an official checkpoint that largely cut off the passage of people and goods between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Once it was under Azeri control, it was possible to use the corridor only in exceptionally urgent cases, through the intermediation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or Russian peacekeepers.

  On 29 July Azerbaijani authorities abducted V Khachatryan, a 68-year-old Nagorno-Karabakh resident who was being evacuated by the ICRC for urgent medical treatment through the Lachin corridor. Khachatryan remains in captivity. Another incident occurred in late August when three Nagorno-Karabakh students were captured by Azerbaijani border guards while travelling to Armenia via the corridor. They were only released 10 days later. Free movement of people to Armenia became impossible.

  The prolonged blockade led to a humanitarian crisis due to shortages of essential goods – including electricity, fuel and water – and the closure of basic services. People in Need, along with Action Against Hunger and Médecins du Monde France, condemned it but, regrettably, our efforts to open to road for the trucks with food to Nagorno-Karabakh were thwarted.

  The situation changed with the shelling that caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent people on 19 and 20 September. Since 24 September, over 100,000 people have fled Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenian regions, where they are also facing an emergency situation due to food and hygiene needs, plus longer-term issues of housing, education and jobs.

  How has Armenian civil society responded to the humanitarian crisis?

  CSOs including PIN deployed humanitarian projects to help blockade-affected people. CSOs conducted visits and issued statements. In Kornidzor, on the border, representatives from dozens of Armenian CSOs gathered during the blockade, urging the international community to uphold human rights and ensure the passage of humanitarian aid for civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh. The unimpeded delivery of essential goods, including food, hygiene items, medicine and fuel, as well as the unrestricted movement of people, including critically ill patients, are fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law.

  What work is PIN doing in this context?

  Since 1992, as a newly established organisation, PIN has been there to help people affected by the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, which lasted from February 1988 to May 1994. We have actively contributed to the growth of Armenian civil society, which has remained resilient throughout this crisis. We coordinate our efforts with the government and local authorities to closely monitor the situation on the ground and carry out numerous humanitarian projects.

  We continue assisting the most vulnerable populations. Since September 2020, we have provided essential humanitarian aid and long-term efforts for the social and economic integration of thousands of people.

  As a humanitarian organisation, we advocate for rights and a peaceful resolution of conflicts in adherence with international law. Along with our partners, we have expressed our concerns, called for measures to prevent the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe and continuously raised internal and donor funds to help people in need.

  When people started fleeing Nagorno-Karabakh, we immediately mobilised PIN funds to support the first recipient centre in the Syunik border region to deliver aid such as food, clothes and blankets to forcibly displaced people and create a special space for children’s activities while their parents dealt with registration and searching for accommodation. Additionally, we launched the SOS Armenia appeal and new humanitarian assistance projects funded by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Union, the Netherlands Refugee Foundation, Start Network and USAID.

  As people continue to leave their homes in search of safety without being able to take their belongings, humanitarian organisations must continue providing assistance to support their basic needs.

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

  Get in touch with People in Need Armenia through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@PIN_Armenia on Twitter.

• ARMENIA: ‘Lack of compelling international action allowed the attack on Nagorno-Karabakh to occur’

  CIVICUS speaks about the humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh– the disputed territory within Azerbaijan that until recently was governed by ethnic Armenians –withLida Minasyan, a feminist peace activist and Resource Mobilisation Consultant at theCentral Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central and North Asia (CEECCNA) Collaborative Fund.

  Founded in 2022, the CEECCNA Collaborative Fund is a feminist fund that mobilises sustainable resources for social justice movements across the CEECCNA region.

  What is the current security and human rights situation in Nagorno-Karabakh?

  The ethnic Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh was forcibly displaced within days of the Azerbaijani government launching a full-scale attack on 19 September. A week later, 100,632 people had arrived in Armenia, having left behind their homes, their belongings and the lives they had built.

  Several actions deliberately targeted against civilians occurred before the start of the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh. In December 2022, Azerbaijan blocked the Lachin corridor, the only road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, leaving the 120,000 Armenians who lived there completely isolated. People endured nine months of severe food insecurity, fuel shortages, electricity outages, communications breakdowns and medical supply shortages. This resulted in a humanitarian crisis that put people, particularly those with vulnerabilities, at risk. Many pregnant women had miscarriages and stillbirths, people with chronic illnesses couldn’t receive their medication and treatment, and risk of infection increased due to the lack of hygiene products. These were just a few of the severe challenges people faced during the blockade.

  The Lachin road was reopened several days after the Azerbaijani offensive, when people, already traumatised and starving, experienced a direct threat to their lives. They had no choice but to leave their homes in search of safety in Armenia.

  Why did Azerbaijan initiate the blockade and military offensive?

  The nine-month blockade and the offensive were meant to achieve the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. The intentional deprivation of essential resources for survival followed by the direct attack to take over Nagorno-Karabakh, along with the creation of conditions for the Armenian population to leave, indicate that Azerbaijan is not contemplating any peaceful end to the conflict or human rights guarantees for Armenian people to feel safe in their homes and continue living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

  By leveraging additional threats against Armenians and Armenian sovereign territories, demonstrating its military power, and consistently introducing new conditions in the negotiation process with Armenia, Azerbaijan intends to assert its dominance. This approach reinforces a policy of hatred towards Armenians spanning decades and undermines the peacebuilding process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  How has Armenian civil society responded to the humanitarian crisis?

  Displaced people endured a journey of over 20 hours to reach Armenia, during which they had no access to food, water or sanitation facilities. As a result, most of them arrived thirsty, hungry and in need of medical attention. When they began arriving, local organisations, activists and volunteers were among the first to give them food, hygiene products and assistance to register for the state support system.

  Local civil society organisations engage in continuous needs assessments of displaced people, using dynamic data collection approaches, as the situation is changing rapidly. In addition to the immediate provision of goods, there are medium and long-term needs to address. Displaced people need psychological assistance to overcome trauma, sustainable medical support, permanent housing, access to education and employment and services to prevent and address gender-based violence.

  As part of the CEECCNA Collaborative Fund, we provide timely updates about the situation to our international partners and mobilise and direct resources to local organisations. Due to limited resources, Armenian civil society activists worked under a lot of pressure because they had to initiate fundraising efforts while simultaneously providing emergency response.

  The Armenian government has provided displaced people with one-time financial support, essential products and access to temporary accommodation. For all its good intentions, however, the government also lacks resources and capacity to provide adequate long-term assistance to displaced people.

  Has the international community’s response been adequate?

  The response has been slow and inadequate. A few months into the blockade, the international community refused to call the situation a humanitarian crisis and many turned a blind eye to the deteriorating conditions of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population.

  After numerous appeals and demands from civil society, some international agencies began releasing statements urging the Azerbaijani government to open the Lachin corridor. They mainly referred to the International Court of Justice’s orders of 22 February and 6 July 2023, which unequivocally mandated Azerbaijan to ensure unrestricted movement of people, vehicles and cargo along the corridor in both directions.

  Despite these decisions, the road remained blocked. A group of four United Nations experts also expressed their concern about the continued closure of the Lachin corridor and called on the Azerbaijani authorities to promptly reinstate unimpeded and safe movement along the road, as stipulated by the November 2020 ceasefire agreement.

  The lack of more compelling action by the international community created an unhindered environment for the attack to occur. Many organisations are currently responding by issuing new alerts and appeals, along with providing much-needed humanitarian support. However, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia require sustainable peace and human security, which will only be achievable through a negotiation that is inclusive of the voices of those most profoundly affected by the conflict. We advocate specifically for the inclusion of women in formal negotiations, in order to pave the way to sustainable peace.

  The international community’s crisis-response support is highly appreciated, but it should be complemented by long-term funding for dialogue, peacebuilding and the reestablishment of human security. Armenian civil society working to alert about potential risks of conflict escalation on the borders of Armenia could also benefit from their support.

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

  Learn more aboutCEECCNA Collaborative Fund in thisblog.

• AZERBAIJAN: ‘Operating on the ground has become increasingly difficult due to security concerns’

  CIVICUS speaks about the links between the exploitation of fossil fuels and human rights violations in Azerbaijan with Kate Watters, Executive Director of Crude Accountability.

  Founded in 2003, Crude Accountability is a civil society organisation that works to protect the environmental and human rights of people in the Caspian and Black Sea regions and in areas of Eurasia affected by oil and gas development.

  How do extractive industries fuel human rights violations in Azerbaijan?

  The key problem is corruption, which results from the close relationship between the executive branch of government and the oil industry. The use of the state oil company by the regime led by president Ilham Aliyev is a key feature of Azerbaijan’s kleptocracy.

  Corporations operating in Azerbaijan handle vast sums of money and oversee massive projects. For example, British Petroleum (BP), the largest foreign investor, is involved in many of the key fossil fuel projects and is the majority shareholder and operator of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, through which around 80 per cent of Azerbaijan’s oil is exported. BP has a monopoly in the industry that dominates the national economy, with oil and gas accounting for 95 per cent of all exports, 75 per cent of government revenue and 42 per cent of national GDP.

  Those in charge of the oil and gas sector control the financial and economic dynamics of the whole country. The vast revenues generated by the hydrocarbon industry make it difficult for smaller environmentally sustainable alternatives to gain traction and create fertile ground for corruption and secrecy. International mechanisms that promote transparency in the industry rely on a level of adherence to the rule of law that Azerbaijan lacks.

  That’s why Crude Accountability’s advocacy efforts focus on advancing transparency and accountability. We aim for the adoption of cleaner technologies that ensure the wellbeing of local communities and call for international financial institutions to cease financing fossil fuels and redirect their investments toward sustainable green energy projects. We urge companies to be transparent about the social and environmental impacts of their operations and strive for continuous improvement.

  What work do you do in Azerbaijan?

  Crude Accountability’s involvement in Azerbaijan dates back to the early 2000s. We work with communities, organisations and people affected by oil and gas developments. Our efforts encompass extensive research, educational and advocacy activities that address the specific impacts of the hydrocarbon industry, such as gas flaring from the BP’s Sangachal Terminal, which is causing villagers health problems and sleep disruption, along with  the broader impacts of onshore and offshore oil and gas development in Azerbaijan.

  As an organisation, we’ve shed light on previously undisclosed areas. One of our achievements is the collaborative report ‘Flames of Toxicity‘, produced in partnership with Omanos Analytics. Using satellite imagery and other technologies, we proved that oil spills and flaring were happening during extraction and refining processes in several locations. By doing this we reminded industry stakeholders that, even when it’s unsafe for activists to conduct extensive on-site verification, there are technologies we can use to gain insight into environmental and human rights violations.

  For the past few years, operating on the ground in Azerbaijan has become increasingly difficult due to security concerns for our partners. Since mid-2023, our primary focus in Azerbaijan has shifted to advocating for the release of Gubad Ibadoghlu, a prominent economist and anti-corruption activist. He was arbitrarily detained in July 2023 and is currently held in miserable conditions in a pretrial detention centre outside the capital, Baku, facing mistreatment and denial of medical attention. During his arrest, both he and his wife were severely beaten after the car they were driving was surrounded and forced to stop. The physical violence perpetrated against Ibadoghlu and his wife during arrest is extremely concerning.

  We are part of an international coalition of activists, academics, policymakers and journalists that works for the release of Gubad Ibadoghlu and other Azerbaijani political prisoners, including independent journalists affected by the recent crackdown on civil society.

  Is the level of repression in Azerbaijan increasing?

  Repression has intensified over the last five years, and particularly in the past couple of years, as President Ilham Aliyev and the presidential apparatus have sought to solidify their position and power. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, authoritarianism and the repression of civil society have escalated across Eurasia. This is certainly the case in Azerbaijan.

  Azerbaijani people are afraid to speak out about the Azerbaijani offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh. Even those who refrain from criticising the offensive and work to address other related issues risk being labelled as ‘pro-Armenian’, a smear used by authorities against activists and dissenters.

  The snap presidential election scheduled for 7 February will serve to further consolidate Aliyev’s rule amidst regional turmoil. In this context, independent journalists face a heightened risk of repression. In June 2023, protests erupted in the village of Soyudlu, already threatened by environmental degradation, against the construction of an artificial lake to contain waste from the nearby Gadabay goldmine. Police severely beat community activists and journalists who came to cover the story. The village remains under lockdown, and although it appears that the goldmine’s activity has been limited or halted, it remains a challenge to obtain verified information. The community has been under stress since the incident.

  Environmental activists are also at risk. People with information about issues such as flaring or emissions are often afraid to speak out. Sometimes they have family members employed by the oil company or refinery and fear that they may lose their jobs, jeopardising the family’s livelihood. Fear of repercussions silences environmental activists and others who are aware of environmental violations. Still, some environmental and human rights defenders continue to operate discreetly in Azerbaijan.

  What forms of international support does Azerbaijani civil society currently need?

  Azerbaijan’s selection as the host for this year’s United Nations climate change conference, COP29, poses significant challenges from both a human rights and an environmental perspective. Azerbaijan has fallen short of its climate commitments. It hasn’t signed the Global Methane Pledge, a step taken even by countries like Turkmenistan. There are also serious concerns about civil society’s ability to participate in COP29 due to ongoing repression and severe human rights violations taking place in the host country. The imprisonment of a prominent Azerbaijani economist investigating corruption in the oil and gas sector raises further concerns.

  The international community should demand transparency and accountability from the Azerbaijani authorities in the run-up to COP29 and throughout the conference. A legitimate discussion on climate change in the framework of sustainability and human rights can only occur with the active participation of civil society.

  It is also very important to building international coalitions to confront authoritarianism, repression and closed civic space. Autocratic governance seeks to make people feel isolated and disunited, so collaborative efforts are vital. By working together, sharing resources and leveraging each organisation’s expertise for knowledge exchange, we can enhance our impact.

  Azerbaijani civil society requires financial resources, solidarity and support from the international community. The more we can offer to activists on the ground, the more successful our collective efforts will be.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Crude Accountability through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow it onLinkedIn andTwitter.

• BOLIVIA: ‘To exercise our rights, Indigenous peoples don’t need anyone’s permission’

  CIVICUS speaks about the struggles of Indigenous peoples in Bolivia with Ruth Alipaz Cuqui, an Indigenous leader from the Bolivian Amazon and general coordinator of the National Coordination for the Defence of Indigenous Peasant Territories and Protected Areas (CONTIOCAP).

  CONTIOCAP was founded in late 2018 out of the convergence of several movements of resistance against the destruction of Indigenous territories and protected areas by extractive projects and the co-optation of traditional organisations representing Indigenous peoples. Initially composed of 12 movements, it now includes 35 from all over Bolivia.

  

  What challenges do Bolivia’s Indigenous peoples face in their struggles for land rights?

  The biggest challenge for Indigenous peoples is the Bolivian government itself, which has become the main agent and source of rights violations, as it does not guarantee compliance with the constitution or protect the rights of its citizens, and particularly those of Indigenous peoples. We are third-class human beings, without rights, and are sacrificed.

  The organisations that used to represent us have been politically subjugated and turned into accomplices and operational arms of the violation of the rights of Indigenous and peasant peoples and nations. The state apparatus is imposing all forms of extractivism on our territories and protected areas: mining, agribusiness and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation.

  The right to free, prior and informed consultation is being manipulated and turned into a simple administrative process that consists in drawing up minutes and signing forms and allows the participation of groups close to the government, which the government identifies as valid interlocutors even though they are not the real people affected by the projects in question.

  Another challenge we Indigenous peoples face is that of understanding that we have been mentally colonised with offers of great wealth that never materialise. We must understand that the wealth that is generated in our territories is taken by outsiders and their corrupt environments. Behind the facade of interculturalism, the government divides us in order to discipline us and put us at the service of its political interests.

  Once we understand this, the main challenge will be to restore the unity of Indigenous peoples, recover our ancestral memory of freedom, undertake the required self-criticism and dedicate ourselves to planning and building the country we want, exercising the rights that are already recognised in the constitution.

  The Bolivian constitution and international conventions and declarations so far represent progress on paper only. The way in which they are implemented by the Bolivian state turns them into abysmal setbacks, gaps, walls and barriers. Thirteen years after its promulgation on 7 February 2009, the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is still tucked away in a desk drawer. In the last decade and a half, a monocultural, centralist, authoritarian, patriarchal, elitist and classist state that imposes a radically extractivist and capitalist economic policy has become the most lethal weapon against economic, cultural, social and justice pluralism.

  Violations of land rights include intimidation, harassment, discrediting, disqualification, criminalisation and legal procedures to silence land rights defenders. Such acts are carried out by oil and mining companies, the security forces, the judiciary – which is dominated by the government – and even by Indigenous organisations that support the government, which issue public resolutions to ignore us and restrict our right to defend our rights.

  What are your mobilisation strategies?

  Our strategy is to always maintain our integrity and dignity and to insist on exercising the rights protected by the Bolivian constitution and international conventions. To exercise our rights we don’t need anyone’s permission or approval, we just need to recognise ourselves as free and independent beings with full rights. This is what CONTIOCAP has been doing. If the government does not do its job, we must remind it that the state belongs to everyone and that we all have a moral obligation to question the bad practices of governments, to debate what kind of country we want and to seek ways for all of us to have the opportunity to grow as human beings.

  Historically, we have resorted to long marches as an extreme form of mobilisation to draw attention and seek justice. First, we marched for a constitution that recognised our rights as Indigenous peoples. And for the past 13 years, we have marched to demand that those rights be realised in practice.

  Our marches have been ignored, made invisible, isolated, harassed, and repressed. They have been accused of responding to opportunistic interests and discredited by powerful economic, political, and governmental forces.

  The 37-day march initiated by the lowland brothers and sisters in September 2021 was no exception in this regard. After so much sacrifice, after abandoning their villages, their homes, their families, their animals, the response they got from the government was insulting. While they waited for a signal from the government, the government met not with them but with organisations subservient to its interests. It was a clear message that it is the government who decides whether we are first, second or third-class citizens.

  What legislative changes do you demand?

  Among the laws that go against Indigenous peoples is Law 535 on Mining and Metallurgy of 2014, which violates fundamental principles and guarantees of the rule of law. It grants privileges to mining operators that are placed above the principle of citizens’ equality. It grants them rights of access to water that supersede those of local communities. It violates fundamental rights of Indigenous peoples such as prior consultation, which is reduced to an administrative process with deadlines and procedures that undermine consultation as a right.

  We also demand the repeal of Law 969 of 2017, which violates the right to self-determination of the Indigenous peoples of the Isiboro-Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park, of Supreme Decree 2298 of 2015, which violates our right to free, prior and informed consultation in the hydrocarbon sector, and of Supreme Decree 2366 of 2015, which allows oil exploration in protected areas.

  There are many laws that we would like to see passed, but in the current context of total control of all powers by the government of the Movement for Socialism, it is dangerous to push a legislative agenda. In the best case scenario, the government could use it to whitewash its image, and in the worst case scenario, to promote its own interests. They would use us to validate norms that could even turn against us.

  But we do demand legislation to guarantee the economic inclusion of productive community organisations and producer families, the approval of the Bill on the Restitution of Ancestral Territories, which was introduced in 2019, and the reform of article 10 of Law 073 on jurisdictional demarcation. We demand that priority be given to effective compliance with the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement) and other international agreements, conventions, pacts and covenants.

  Do you see your struggles as part of a broader regional movement?

  The struggle to protect land and the environment is not the struggle of a single movement but a global struggle for the defence of life through the protection of our land. Nor is it the product of a sudden inspiration, but of an awareness of our right and the right of all forms of life to exist in this world. We seek respect as human beings who have taken care of the planet for all of us, even for those who are now destroying it.

  In that sense, our struggles are the same as those of Indigenous peoples around the world. We are somehow connected and linked at regional and global levels, although over the past two years the COVID-19 pandemic has prevented us from having face-to-face exchanges, while virtual exchanges have been hindered by the limitations of access to communications in Indigenous territories. However, we are now resuming the exchange of experiences and coordination.

  What support do groups defending land rights in Bolivia need from international civil society?

  They can help us by making our struggles visible, making them known so we can connect with other struggles of Indigenous brothers and sisters around the world. We want them to know that we defend our territories in precarious conditions and with our own resources and sacrificing the economy of our families, even more so after the pandemic. And we do this not only for ourselves but for all beings that require oxygen and water to live. We need direct support with small funds for legal and other emergency actions.

  We hope that they will help us unmask the double discourse of the Bolivian governments of the past 16 years, which in international spaces have presented themselves as saviours of Indigenous peoples and defenders of Mother Earth. This is far from the truth; these are just speeches that sound good from the outside and that international organisations like.

  We must unmask the international propaganda about left-wing governments. For us Indigenous peoples, all the governments of Bolivia – whatever their political colour – have had the same plans against Indigenous peoples. They seek to relegate us, put us off, divide us and pit us against each other to perpetuate themselves in power.

  Civic space in Bolivia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Contact CONTIOCAP through itsFacebook page and follow@contiocap and@CuquiRuth on Twitter. 

• BURKINA FASO: ‘For a major segment of civil society security is a more urgent concern than democracy’

  CIVICUS speaks about therecent military coup in Burkina Faso with Kop'ep Dabugat, Network Coordinator of the West Africa Democracy Solidarity Network (WADEMOS).

  WADEMOS is a coalition of West African civil society organisations (CSOs) that mobilises civil society around the defence of democracy and the promotion of democratic norms in the region.

  What led to the recent coup in Burkina Faso, and what needs to be done for democracy to be restored?

  The current head of Burkina Faso’s ruling junta, Captain Ibrahim Traoré, cited persistent insecurity as a reason for the military takeover – as did his predecessor, Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba. Attacks by armed groups are said to have greatly increased in the months following the first coup led by Damiba, in January 2022. According to analysts, Burkina Faso is the new epicentre of conflict in the Sahel. Since 2015, jihadist violence by insurgents with links to al-Qaeda and Islamic State has resulted in the death of thousands of people and displaced a further two million.

  The coup also revealed the presence of a schism in the Damiba-led junta. It was orchestrated by military officers who were part of the coup that installed Damiba as head of state, but who now claimed that Damiba did not focus on reorganising the army to better face security threats, as they had expected. Instead, he stuck with the military structure that led to the fall of the government under President Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, and began to display political ambitions.

  The security question remains the first challenge that needs to be addressed to make Burkina Faso a democratic state. The foremost role of a state, and more so of a democratic one, is to guarantee the safety of its citizens. A united Burkina Faso army will be necessary to achieve this.

  The other thing that must be done is to see through the existing transition programme for the country to return to civilian rule by July 2024, to which the new junta has agreed.

  Beyond the transition, the need to build a strong state and political institutions cannot be overemphasised. The challenges of corruption and economic marginalisation should be tackled in earnest. The need for stronger institutions is not peculiar to Burkina Faso: it is familiar to all the region, and particularly to those countries that have recently come under military rule, notably Guinea and Mali.

  What was civil society’s reaction to the recent military coup?

  In line with the disunity that characterises civil society in Burkina Faso, the civil society response to the coup has been mixed. But a notable section of civil society seemed to welcome the most recent coup because they saw the Damiba-led junta not only as authoritarian but also as aligned with politicians from the regime of President Blaise Compaoré, in power from 1987 to 2014. They saw the real possibility that those politicians could regain power and shut all doors on victims of the Compaoré regime ever seeing justice.

  As a result, the view of the recent coup as a significant setback for the democratic transition agenda is not unanimously held among civil society. Additionally, for a major segment of civil society security appears to be a more urgent and priority concern than democracy, so the element that prevailed was the seeming incapacity of the Damiba-led junta to address the security situation.

  The effort of the traditional and religious groups that negotiated a seven-point agreement between the Damiba and Traoré factions of the military, ending violence and forestalling further bloodshed, however, deserves commendation. That effort seems to have established a baseline of engagement between the Traoré-led junta and civil society. Such constructive engagement with the new government seems to have continued, with the notable participation of civil society in the 14 October 2022 National Conference that approved a new Transitional Charter for Burkina Faso and officially appointed Traoré as transitional president.

  What is the situation of human right CSOs?

  Burkinabe CSOs in the human and civil rights space have grown increasingly concerned about the victimisation of politicians and members of the public perceived to be pro-France as well as by the marked upsurge of pro-Russian groups demanding that France and all its interests be kicked out of the country.

  On top of their concern about the raging jihadist insurgency, human and civil rights CSOs are also concerned about the stigmatisation and victimisation of citizens of Fulani ethnicity. This victimisation stems from the fact that many terrorist cells recruit Burkinabe people of Fulani extraction. There have been reports of arbitrary arrests and extrajudicial killings of Fulani people due to their alleged complicity in terrorist violence. Besides these two, no other notable cases of human rights abuses threatening civilians have been identified besides the ones already mentioned. Hence, even though it is still early in the Traoré-led government, it may be safe to rule out any consistent pattern of heightened human rights abuses under its watch.

  How has the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) responded to the military coup?

  In accordance with the letter of its 2001 Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, the initial response of ECOWAS was to condemn the coup strongly and unequivocally, calling it an unfortunate and retrogressive development, especially in light of the progress made with the Damiba-led junta in preparing the ground for elections and democracy. ECOWAS also called for the junta to guarantee human rights and ensure stability.

  Despite the ongoing sanctions against the country, following his meeting with Traoré, Mahamadou Issoufou, the former president of Niger and mediator sent to Burkina Faso by ECOWAS, said he was satisfied and that ECOWAS would remain by the side of the people of Burkina Faso. In what is the ECOWAS way to respond to military governments, ECOWAS will work closely with the junta to restore democratic order. The timeline stands and the deadline remains July 2024.

  How have other international institutions reacted, and what should they do to support civil society in Burkina Faso?

  Other international institutions have reacted similarly to ECOWAS. The African Union condemned the coup and said it was unfortunate in light of the progress already made towards the restoration of democracy. The coup was similarly condemned by the United Nations and the European Parliament.

  If the international community wants to assist CSOs in Burkina Faso, what it first and foremost needs to do is support the junta’s efforts to stamp out the jihadist insurgency that continues to hold the country hostage. It should also assist the authorities in tackling not only the current refugee crisis but also the challenge of climate change, which is a contributing factor not just to the refugee crisis but also to the spread of terrorist violence.

  The international community must also continue to mount pressure on the junta to deliver on its promise to adhere to the agreements the former junta reached with ECOWAS, to put an end to the victimisation of people on account of their political affiliations and ethnicity, and to set free anyone who has been imprisoned for political reasons.

  ---

  Civic space inBurkina Faso is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch withWADEMOS through itswebsite or its Facebook page, and follow @WADEMOSnetwork on Twitter.

• CAMEROON: ‘The Anglophone discontent must be addressed through meaningful discussion with all parties’

  CIVICUS speaks with the Cameroonian writer and digital activist Dibussi Tande about the ongoing crisis in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions. The conflict emerged in 2016 out of a series of legal and educational grievances expressed by the country’s Anglophone population, which is a minority at the national level but a majority in Cameroon’s Northwest and Southwest regions.

  Dibussiis the author ofScribbles from the Den. Essays on Politics and Collective Memory in Cameroon. He also has a blog where he shares news and analyses of the situation in Cameroon.

  What have been the humanitarian consequences of the escalating conflict in Cameroon?

  The main humanitarian issue is the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the conflict. According to the United Nations (UN) Refugee Agency, by August 2021 there were 712,800 internally displaced persons (IDPs). Although some have since returned, there are still over half a million IDPs spread across Cameroon.

  The priority needs of IDPs and returnees today are housing and access to healthcare, food, water and education. However, help has not been readily available, which explains why this conflict has repeatedly been classified as one of the most neglected displacement crises since 2019.

  Let’s not forget that the UN Refugee Agency has an additional 82,000 Cameroonian refugees registered in Nigeria. Add the millions of people trapped in conflict zones and caught in the crossfire, and you have the recipe for a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

  What will it take to de-escalate the situation?

  It’s quite simple. First, the parties involved in the conflict must be willing to look beyond the military option, which so far has not resolved anything, and seek a peaceful resolution instead. There can be no real de-escalation until they give meaning to the now derided calls for an ‘all-inclusive dialogue’ that have become a platitude and an excuse for inaction. That said, I think the onus lies primarily with the government of Cameroon, which is the party with the resources to at least initiate real dialogue.

  Second, the international community needs to revise its approach to the conflict. All attempts thus far at international mediation – for example, the ‘Swiss Process’ in which the government of Switzerland convened talks – have either dragged on for years or simply failed. The international community must step up the pressure on all factions, including the threat of individual and collective sanctions for their continued obdurateness. Without this two-pronged approach, there will not be a de-escalation anytime soon.

  What kind of challenges does civil society face when advocating for peace?

  Civil society faces numerous challenges. For starters, civil society organisations (CSOs) have limited access to conflict zones. They must also walk a fine line between government and Ambazonian groups – those fighting for the independence of Ambazonia, a self-declared state in the Anglophone regions – who both routinely accuse them of supporting the other side. Even when civil society gains access to conflict zones, it operates with very limited financial and other resources.

  That said, the most serious challenge to their operations is government hostility. Local CSOs have routinely complained about intimidation and harassment by Cameroonian authorities as they try to work in conflict zones. In 2020, for example, the Minister of Territorial Administration accused local CSOs of colluding with international CSOs to fuel terrorism in Cameroon. He claimed that these ‘teleguided NGOs’ had received 5 billion CFA francs (approx. US$7.4 million) to whitewash the atrocities of separatist groups while publishing fake reports about alleged abuses by the Cameroonian military.

  International humanitarian groups such as Doctors Without Borders (MSF) have also faced the wrath of the government. In 2020, Cameroon suspended MSF from carrying out activities in the Northwest region after accusing it of having close relations with separatists. And in March 2022, MSF suspended its activities in the Southwest region after four of its workers were arrested for allegedly collaborating with separatists. MSF complained that the government confused neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian aid with collusion with separatist forces.

  What were the expectations of English-speaking Cameroonians for 1 October, proclaimed as ‘Independence Day’ in the Anglophone regions?

  English-speaking Cameroonians come in different shades of political ideology, so they had different expectations. For independentists, the goal is simple: independence for the former British Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. As far as they are concerned, any negotiation with the government must be about how to end the union and not about whether the union should continue.

  But other segments of the population still believe in a bilingual Cameroon republic, albeit under new political arrangements. Federalists believe that Anglophone expectations will be met if the country returns to the federal system that existed between 1961 and 1972. This system gave the former British Southern Cameroons constitutional protections within a federal republic, including the right to its own state government, an elected legislature, an independent judiciary, a vibrant local government system and state control over the education system.

  The government of Cameroon has accommodated neither the radical demands of independentists nor the comparatively moderate demands of the federalists. Instead, it is forging ahead with a ‘decentralisation’ policy that gives nominal power to the regions but does not even begin to address the fundamentals of the so-called ‘Anglophone problem’.

  What should Cameroon’s government do to ensure the recognition of the rights of English-speaking Cameroonians?

  For starters, the government should abandon its stopgap and largely cosmetic approach to resolving the conflict, because it only adds to the existing resentment. This is the case, for example, with the much-maligned ‘special status’ accorded to the Northwest and Southwest regions, supposedly to recognise their ‘linguistic particularity and historic heritage’, but which does not give them the power to influence or determine policies in key areas such as education, justice and local government, where this ‘particularity’ needs the most protection.

  The historical and constitutional origins of the Anglophone discontent within the bilingual Cameroon republic are well documented. This discontent must be addressed with a holistic approach that includes meaningful discussions with all parties, from the federalists to the independentists. Dialogue is a journey, not a destination. And the time to start that journey is now, no matter how tortuous, frustrating and challenging, and despite the deep-seated distrust, resentment and animosity among the parties.

  How can the international community support Cameroonian civil society and help find a solution?

  Cameroonian civil society needs financial, material and other resources to adequately provide humanitarian and other assistance to displaced people and people living in conflict zones. This is where the international community comes in. However, international aid is a double-edged sword, given the Cameroon government’s suspicion and hostility towards local CSOs that have international partners, especially those that are critical of how the government has handled the conflict so far. Civil society also needs resources to accurately and adequately document what exactly is happening on the ground, including war crimes and violations of international human rights laws.

  To be able to play a pivotal role in the search for a solution to the conflict, CSOs will have to figure out a way to convince the government – and Ambazonian groups that are equally suspicious of their activities – that they are honest brokers rather than partisan actors or trojan horses working for one side or the other. This is a Herculean, if not virtually impossible, task at this juncture. So, for now, civil society will continue to walk a fine line between the government and the independentists, all the while promising more than it can deliver to the people affected by the conflict.

  As for international support to finding a solution, there has been a lot more international handwringing, from the African Union to the UN, than real action. The international community has so far adopted a largely reactive stance towards the conflict. It issues statements of distress after every atrocity, followed by hollow calls for inclusive dialogue. And then it goes silent until the next tragedy. Hence, the parties have little incentive for dialogue, especially when each believes, rightly or wrongly, that it is gaining the upper hand militarily.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Dibussi Tande through hiswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@dibussi on Twitter.

• CAMEROUN : « La communauté internationale n’a pas contribué au traitement des causes profondes de la crise anglophone »

   CIVICUS échange avec la chercheuse et écrivaine féministe camerounaise Monique Kwachou au sujet de la crise actuelle dans les régions anglophones du Cameroun. Le conflit a émergé en 2016 à travers une série de griefs juridiques et éducatifs exprimés par la population anglophone du pays, minoritaire au niveau national mais majoritaire dans les régions du Nord-Ouest et du Sud-Ouest du Cameroun.

  Monique est la fondatrice de Better Breed Cameroon, une organisation de la société civile (OSC) travaillant sur le développement et l'émancipation des jeunes, et coordinatrice nationale de la section camerounaise du Forum des éducatrices africaines.

  Quelles ont été les conséquences humanitaires de l’escalade du conflit dans les régions anglophones du Cameroun ?

  La crise dans les régions anglophones du Cameroun a entraîné le déplacement interne de près de 800 000 personnes anglophones, selon lesuivi des organisations humanitaires. De nombreuses personnes émigrent également vers d’autres pays en quête de sécurité. Malheureusement, les civils ont été instrumentalisés et utilisés comme une arme. En conséquence la seule manière pour eux de se protéger est de fuir vers des régions plus sûres, à l'intérieur comme en dehors du pays.

  De même, de nombreuses personnes sont de plus en plus désespérées et n’investissent plus dans les régions anglophones comme elles le faisaient auparavant. Pour vous donner une idée claire de l’insécurité qui règne actuellement dans les régions anglophones, avant de sortir de chez moi, je dois évaluer les risques et décider si ce que je dois faire en vaut la peine.

  Les exécutions illégales et les enlèvements sont désormais monnaie courante et quelque peu normalisés : ils ne nous choquent pas autant qu’autrefois, et il existe une lassitude générale liée au traumatisme qui peut engendrer une apathie dangereuse.

  Actuellement, certaines personnes essaient de faire circuler un hashtag à propos d’un enlèvement récent de membres du clergé et de fidèles catholiques dans la région du Nord-Ouest. Les ravisseurs exigent une rançon de 30 millions de francs CFA (environ 45 000 dollars), mais l’Église hésite d’accepter ces demandes, craignant que si les kidnappeurs sont payés une fois, d’autres personnes seront enlevées dans le futur. Pourtant, la plupart des commentaires sur les réseaux sociaux à propos de cette nouvelle soutiennent le paiement de la rançon puisqu’il n’y a rien d’autre à faire. C'est la récurrence de telles histoires qui provoque cette apathie.

  Étant donné que les forces de sécuritéont une réputation de violence et qu’elles ont contribué au développement de la crise en brûlant des villages entiers, les gens ne leur font pas confiance non plus.

  En tant qu’enseignante, je pense que l’un des impacts les plus tristes de cette crise est au niveau de l’éducation. Pour l’instant, je pense que personne ne bénéficie d’une éducation de qualité. De nombreuses personnes ont émigré vers d’autres régions, notamment vers Douala, la plus grande ville du Cameroun, et Yaoundé, la capitale. En conséquence, les écoles y sont surpeuplées. Le ratio élèves- enseignants a augmenté et la qualité de l’enseignement a baissé. Dans les régions en crise, chaque grève et chaque couvre-feu met en suspens l’avenir des élèves et affecte potentiellement leur bien-être psychologique.

  Que faudra-t-il faire pour désescalader la situation ?

  Je pense que le gouvernement sait déjà ce qu’il faut faire pour que la situation s’apaise. Edith Kahbang Walla, du parti de l’opposition Parti du Peuple Camerounais, a présenté un processus de désescalade et de transition politique pacifique, étape par étape. Mais le problème est que le parti au pouvoir ne veut pas de transition. Or, vu qu'il semblerait qu'ils prévoient de rester perpétuellement au pouvoir, ils feraient mieux d’apporter des changements qui conviennent à toutes les régions du Cameroun.

  Des mesures extrêmes ont été adoptées pour attirer l’attention sur les problèmes rencontrés par les Camerounais anglophones. Les régions anglophones maintiennent les journées de « ville morte » tous les lundis, arrêtant les activités pendant un jour pour protester contre les autorités. Ces jours-là, les écoles ne fonctionnent pas et les entreprises restent fermées. L’objectif initial était de montrer du soutien aux enseignants et aux avocats en grève, mais cette pratique commence à avoir un impact négatif sur la vie des habitants des régions anglophones.

  Si le gouvernement envisageait une meilleure stratégie pour négocier avec les sécessionnistes, la situation pourrait être traitée efficacement. Malheureusement, le gouvernement a rendu la négociation impossible depuis le début de la crise en arrêtant les manifestants. Avec qui le gouvernement va-t-il alors dialoguer ? Ils soutiennent qu’ils ne négocieront pas avec les terroristes, tout en oubliant que c'est eux qui ont créé le monstre. Ils doivent reconnaître les causes profondes du problème, sinon ils ne pourront pas le résoudre.

  À quels défis la société civile doit-elle faire face en plaidant pour la paix ?

  La société civile est doublement victime du conflit en cours. Étant donné que les OSC se concentrent en ce moment sur l'action humanitaire, leurs activités axées sur le développement ont été grandement affectées par la crise et laissées de côté.

  D’une part, le gouvernement est en train de saper l’activisme des populations anglophones par le biais d'arrestations et de restrictions de la liberté d’expression, tant sur Internet comme hors Internet. Il est dangereux de dénoncer le gouvernement et l'action des militaires dans les régions anglophones. Par exemple, la journaliste Mimi Mefo a été arrêtée pour avoir fait un reportage sur l’activité militaire et a dû quitter le Cameroun parce que sa vie était menacée.

  D’autre part, les militants pacifistes qui préconisent le retour des enfants à l’école sont attaqués par des groupes sécessionnistes qui pensent que ces demandes seront instrumentalisées par le gouvernement. Des hôpitaux ont été attaqués à la fois par les militaires et par les groupes armés sécessionnistes parce qu’ils ont aidé l’un ou l’autre.

  Outre le défi du danger auquel les membres des OSC sont confrontés dans le cadre de leur travail, un autre défi est celui de l'articulation de messages pour la paix et la résolution de la crise sans être identifié comme pro-gouvernemental ou pro-sécessionniste. Cela s'accentue par le fait que les médias tentent de dépeindre le conflit comme si c'était tout noir ou blanc. Cela n’a pas été une tâche facile. Les ressources limitées rendent également difficile le travail tendant à la consolidation de la paix.

  Comment la communauté internationale peut-elle soutenir la société civile camerounaise ?

  Pendant la crise, les organisations humanitaires ont commencé à se rendre visibles dans les régions anglophones. Cependant, l’aide des organisations humanitaires ne répond qu'aux symptômes du problème, et non à sa cause profonde : ce n'est pas une façon de résoudre la crise. Je n’ai pas vu la communauté internationale aider le Cameroun à s’attaquer aux causes profondes du conflit. Ce serait constructif, par exemple, d’aider à tracer la vente d'armes aux deux camps. Nos principaux partenaires internationaux pourraient également utiliser leur influence pour faire pression sur le gouvernement afin qu’il s’oriente vers un véritable dialogue inclusif et garantisse l’adoption de solutions efficaces à la crise.

  ---

   L’espace civique au Cameroun est classé comme « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contactez Monique Kwachou sur sonsite internet et suivez@montrelz sur Twitter.

• CIVICUS urges an end to attacks on civilians in Gaza

  

  Global civil society alliance, CIVICUS expressly condemns the continued bombardment of civilians in the ongoing conflict in Gaza and calls on all parties to stop the violence to prevent further humanitarian catastrophe. 

  We are appalled by the immense loss of life in the conflict and incalculable suffering being imposed on civilians. Warning by the Israeli military to more than 1.1 million Palestinians in northern Gaza to evacuate southwards amounts to forcible displacement and will have dire consequences and lead to an unprecedented loss of lives and destruction of homes. Disruption of basic necessities such as electricity, food, water supply and fuel are causing immense suffering and must stop. Imposition of collective punishment on civilians by bombarding them and their homes amounts to war crimes. 

  CIVICUS stands against all human rights abuses and war crimes. We firmly believe that preventing future outbreaks of violence necessitates respect for human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. We support access to justice for victims of violence and occupation. 

  CIVICUS mourns the loss of precious lives in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We underscore the essential role of civil society organisations to help communities access their rights and pursue social cohesion and equality. Civic space and civil society participation are fundamental to ensuring accountability for human rights violations in accordance with due process because there can be no real peace or security without justice.

  CIVICUS remains concerned about the spread of disinformation which spawns hatred and violence. Finally, we urge the international community to urgently take steps to address the root causes of the conflict as a pathway to enduring peace. We urge the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security which incorporates gender perspectives.

• Civil society expresses solidarity with the Ukrainian people and condemn Putin’s War

  We civil society organisations, including national umbrella bodies from across the world, stand united in our condemnation of Russia’s military aggression toward Ukraine in gross violation of international law. We deplore the targeting of civilian populations and infrastructures by Russian forces, which amounts to war crimes.

• COLOMBIA: ‘The Chiquita case shows it’s possible to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses’

  CIVICUS discusses a recent court victory that held multinational banana company Chiquita accountable for human rights violations in Colombia with Gabriela Valentín Díaz, a member of the EarthRights International legal team that represented victims in the case.

  After 17 years of litigation, a Florida court recentlyfound Chiquita responsible for funding the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary group responsible for numerous massacres that was declared a terrorist organisation by the US government. The court awarded US$38 million in damages to the families of eight victims involved in the lawsuits. The verdict was an important step forward in civil society’s efforts to hold corporations legally accountable for human rights abuses. Many more cases are expected to follow.

  What wasChiquita found liable for?

  The jury concluded that Chiquita Brands International, a major banana company with farms in Colombia, didn’t act like a ‘reasonable business person’ when it chose to fund the AUC.

  The AUC was a violent, far-right paramilitary group that was active during Colombia’s 50-year civil war. It was known for its many human rights abuses, including killings, massacres, kidnappings and forced displacement. This had a devastating impact on Colombian society, particularly in areas where large companies operated.

  Despite being aware of the AUC’s violent activities, Chiquita regularly paid them for years in exchange for what were described as ‘security services’. Although Chiquita claimed to have been forced to make the payments, the jury concluded that the testimony revealed they were not simply a response to extortion, but were made voluntarily. This financial support contributed to the AUC’s violent actions, resulting in numerous deaths and atrocities, and was found to have contributed to the deaths of the victims represented in the trial.

  Why is this ruling important?

  This ruling has important implications beyond the Chiquita case. For many Colombians, it confirms that Chiquita exploited the civil conflict and exacerbated the violence by financially supporting the AUC. Globally, the verdict serves as a warning that multinational companies can be held accountable for their complicity in human rights abuses, even when those abuses occur outside their home country.

  How should the Colombian justice system respond to similar cases of human rights violations?

  Colombia has taken steps to address crimes committed during its long civil conflict, including the establishment of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace and other transitional justice systems. These efforts aim to establish the truth and provide justice. However, we also support the demands of Colombian civil society that corporate actors should also be held accountable for their role in fuelling social conflict in Colombia.

  To address this, the Colombian justice system should focus on investigating companies that played a role in human rights abuses. If these companies are found guilty of supporting or profiting from violence, they should face the same legal consequences as other perpetrators. This approach would help ensure that justice is comprehensive and includes all responsible parties, not just armed groups and individuals.

  What can be done to hold companies accountable for the human rights impacts of their operations?

  In many countries such as the USA, corporate laws are designed primarily to maximise profits, often at the expense of people and communities. The emphasis on profit can lead to serious harms being ignored or minimised. This must change. Governments around the world must prioritise human rights when regulating business. Rather than letting them hide behind complicated legal tactics, governments should require companies to respect human rights and hold them accountable for any harm they cause.

  International organisations can play a crucial role. They can serve as platforms for bringing cases against companies that violate human rights. By sharing information and building international support, these organisations can help hold these companies to account. Accountability ensures that companies are not allowed to ignore the human impact of their actions in the pursuit of profit.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with EarthRights International through itswebsite orInstagram page, and follow@EarthRightsIntl and@gpvalentind on Twitter.

• DRC: ‘Civil society action is needed more than ever, but the space in which it can undertake it is getting smaller’

  CIVICUS speaks with Bahati Rubango, country coordinator at the Women’s International Peace Centre (WIPC), about conflict in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

  WIPC is a feminist organisation seeking to catalyse women’s leadership, amplify their voices and deepen their role in peacebuilding. It started out in 1974 as Isis-Women’s International Cross-Cultural Exchange, and in 1994 it moved from Geneva to Uganda and deepened its focus on the women, peace and security agenda.

  What’s the security situation in the DRC, and how is civil society working to address it?

  In the DRC, and particularly in Kivu and other parts of eastern DRC, including Beni, Bunagana, Masisi and Rutshuru territories and Ituri and South Kivu provinces, the situation is dire due to ongoing conflict. The prominence of the M23 rebel group exacerbates the crisis. The DRC’s government has accused Rwanda of supporting M23, with these claims substantiated by United Nations (UN) reports. The region is also plagued by the presence of over 120 other armed factions, foreign and local, some of which receive backing from Uganda, further complicating the situation.

  This has precipitated a humanitarian catastrophe, characterised by widespread displacement, killings, rape, plundering of natural resources, instances of sexual violence and severe limitations on access to education and healthcare, worsening the suffering and vulnerability of millions of civilians.

  Despite the deployment of various regional and international peacekeeping missions, the violence persists. The peacekeeping efforts of MONUSCO, the UN Stabilization Mission in the DRC, have fallen short. The conflict has regional and global dimensions beyond the DRC’s borders, impacting on peace and security across multiple countries.

  There is a complex interplay of local and international dynamics, including economic interests that perpetuate the conflict. The conflict’s economic dimension has been illustrated by the fact that rebel groups are mainly located where there are strategic natural resources.

  Efforts to quell the insurgency by national militia groups such as the Wazalendo movement find obstacles in the challenging terrain and the firm grip of rebel groups on strategic areas. As a result, access to Goma and other conflict-affected regions is primarily limited to air travel and boats across Lake Kivu, which impedes humanitarian aid and peacekeeping efforts.

  Civil society organisations play a crucial role in peacebuilding, monitoring human rights violations and advocating for justice and security sector reforms. Civil society highlights the need for justice for victims and the involvement of women and young people in peace processes. Despite challenges, including threats to human rights defenders, civil society strives to raise awareness, combat hate speech and protect vulnerable populations.

  How much space is there for civil society action in the DRC?

  The situation has been tumultuous since May 2021, with the declaration of a state of siege in conflict areas that has subsequently been renewed. Under the ongoing state of siege, the military displaced civilian authorities and assumed control. This shift resulted in a significant curtailment of civic freedoms, particularly for public demonstrations and speech. Military justice has taken precedence over civilian law, raising ethical concerns and contributing to lack of accountability.

  Problems have been compounded by the questionable level of training and education in the army. There have been reports of inadequately trained people being integrated, including former rebel fighters with no regard for human rights principles, approaches or values. This has led to a rise in criminal activities and violations committed by security forces, further restricting civic space.

  Human rights defenders and journalists critical of the government have faced persecution. Arrests and criminalisation under baseless charges have become commonplace. Despite legislative efforts to protect activists, implementation has been lacking, exacerbating the erosion of civic space. An example is Lucha (Lutte pour le changement – Fight for Change), an organisation of young activists, several of whom spent four days under arrest simply for signing a declaration urging the state to stop war.

  Advocacy at national, regional and global levels is needed to address the challenges of conflict. However, entrenched power dynamics in the DRC, including the dominance of the ruling party, pose significant obstacles to meaningful reform. Urgent action is needed to reverse the trend of declining civic space, because civil society action is needed more than ever, but the space in which it can undertake it is getting smaller.

  What’s the likelihood of tensions between the DRC and Rwanda escalating into a regional conflict?

  Rwanda’s involvement in destabilising the DRC is concerning, especially considering its history of aggression in the region, but it won’t necessarily lead to a regional conflict. Despite Rwanda’s attempts to exert influence, the DRC has demonstrated significant military strength in defending its territory against its aggression in the past.

  Rwanda’s diplomatic prowess and hidden support from foreign countries – often driven by economic interests around mineral resources – contribute to its ability to manipulate regional dynamics. Rebel groups such as the M23 and the Allied Democratic Forces exploit the porous borders between Rwanda and the DRC, seeking refuge in and support from Rwanda to evade accountability for their actions. This exacerbates tensions between the two countries.

  But the likelihood of the conflict escalating into a full-blown regional war is mitigated by mutual interests and dependencies. Both countries rely on resources derived from the DRC, which acts as a deterrent to all-out warfare. Regional initiatives like the Nairobi Process, brokered by the East African Community in November 2022, seek to address underlying tensions and promote peacebuilding efforts. However, the effectiveness of such initiatives is undermined by external influences dictating the terms of engagement and providing support to conflicting parties.

  Civil society plays a crucial role in advocating for peace and stability, but its efforts are hindered by external interference and power dynamics that dictate the trajectory of the conflict. While regional organisations, notably the African Union, are theoretically focused on addressing conflict in the continent, external influences and interests often compromise their effectiveness.

  Ultimately, it will require a concerted effort from regional and global players committed to peace and stability in the Great Lakes region to prevent the escalation of the conflict and resolve it for good.

  How can the international community support peacebuilding efforts in the DRC?

  There is a pressing need for support from the international community to assist internally displaced people in desperate need of essentials such as food and shelter. Efforts are also needed to document atrocities to ensure accountability further along the road. This includes highlighting the responsibilities of perpetrators and using this information to ensure justice is served, even if it takes years. Support for civil society groups involved in peacebuilding processes is crucial, particularly since the state lacks adequate resources.

  Although it may not generate enthusiasm in all quarters of the international community, security sector reform requires attention. Fortunately, there are promising initiatives funded by international donors.

  Another critical need is justice reform, which should include mechanisms for transitional justice. This will be vital to address the immediate effects of conflict and the long-standing grievances and cycles of violence that have plagued the region for decades. Access to justice for victims is paramount to break the cycle of impunity and prevent further atrocities. There’s a need for collective and individual reparations for victims, as well as guarantees that such violence will not be repeated. This includes addressing psychological trauma and providing survivors the support they need to rebuild their lives.

  Both local and international engagement will be needed to ensure that peacebuilding agreements are fully respected and implemented, including by holding all parties responsible and accountable. Civil society activists, academics and journalists will have a crucial role in monitoring and advocating for these agreements to be fulfilled.

  Finally, it’s essential to recognise that the conflict in the DRC is not isolated but has regional and global implications. Efforts to address the crisis must consider its broader context and involve stakeholders at all levels, from local communities to international organisations. Only through a holistic and inclusive approach can lasting peace and stability be achieved in the region.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with the Women’s International Peace Centre through itswebsite and follow @TheWIPCentre and@BRubango on Twitter.

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

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

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

  

  What triggered the anti-MONUSCO protests?

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

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

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

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

  How have the authorities responded to protesters’ demands?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What should the international community do to help?

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

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

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

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

• ETHIOPIA: ‘The June 2021 election is between democratic life and death’

  CIVICUS speaks to Mesud Gebeyehu about the political conflict in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia and the highly contested upcoming Ethiopian national election, scheduled to take place in June 2021 amidst an ongoing pandemic and a continuing state of emergency. Mesud is Executive Director of the Consortium of Ethiopian Human Rights Organisations (CEHRO) and vice-chair of the Executive Committee of CIVICUS’s Affinity Group of National Associations. Mesud is also Executive Committee member of the Ethiopian CSOs Council, a statutory body established to coordinate the self-regulation of civil society organisations (CSOs) in Ethiopia.

• Firm, unified response needed to Russia’s aggression

  By Andrew Firmin, Editor in Chief, CIVICUS

  It is now clear diplomacy matters little to Vladimir Putin. Despite the efforts of a string of presidents and prime ministers to prevent conflict, on 24 February, Putin started the war he’d been itching for.

  What now seems evident is that Putin expects to maintain a Cold War-style sphere of influence around Russia’s borders. It isn’t only his treatment of Ukraine, seemingly punished for orienting a little more towards the west and entertaining a vague idea of joining NATO, that shows this.

  In the context of conflict, there’s a need to monitor and collect evidence of human rights violations – with the aim of one day holding the perpetrators and commissioners of crimes to account in the international justice system.

  Civil society can play a vital part here – not only in defending human rights and monitoring violations, but also in building peace at the local level and providing essential humanitarian help to people left bereft by conflict.

  Read more on Inter Press Service 

• GAZA: ‘The attacks and disinformation campaign against UNRWA are aimed at dismantling it’

  CIVICUS speaks with Jonathan Fowler of the United Nations Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), about the agency’s role in Gaza and the challenges it faces.

  Established after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, UNRWA is the UN agency tasked with supporting the welfare and human development of Palestine refugees. It’s funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions from UN member states.

  What’s UNRWA’s role?

  UNRWA was established by the UN General Assembly in 1949 to deal with the effects of the refugee crisis caused by the Arab-Israeli war. Its initial mandate was to meet immediate humanitarian needs, but over the years it evolved and expanded to include a wide range of services.

  We are a unique agency in the UN system. We are not an advisory agency – we are direct providers of education, healthcare, relief and social services, camp infrastructure and improvement, microfinance and emergency relief.

  UNRWA employs some 30,000 staff, most of whom are Palestine refugees. We are the agency with the largest presence in Gaza, where 13,000 staff were engaged in pre-war operations, notably in education. Recently, the agency has suffered an unprecedented number of casualties among its staff, with 189 members losing their lives. There are still 3,500 to 4,000 people working heroically on the ground, while the rest have been forced to flee.

  UNRWA’s work extends beyond Gaza. We also work in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Each place has its own challenges.

  In the context of a dire humanitarian crisis such as the war in Gaza, we have shifted to a more traditional humanitarian role. Because of our size, we’re the backbone of humanitarian operations in Gaza. We are indispensable to other parts of the UN system that rely on our logistics on the ground.

  How has UNRWA responded to accusations of collaboration with Hamas?

  Over the years UNRWA has faced a number of allegations of breaches of neutrality by its staff. We work in a highly politicised environment, but we’re not here to reconcile different narratives about the conflict or the history of the region – we’re here to help Palestinian refugees. We believe in the need for a just and lasting solution to the refugee crisis, but our goal and mission are primarily humanitarian, not political.

  While staff are allowed to have their opinions, neutrality is essential for any UN official. But in a large organisation like ours, there will inevitably be occasional breaches of neutrality. When they occur, we conduct internal – and sometimes external – investigations.

  We strongly condemned the Hamas attacks on civilians on 7 October. They were abhorrent and unacceptable, and completely contrary to international humanitarian law.

  But at the end of January, we were faced with allegations that 12 of our staff were involved in the 7 October attacks. We acted swiftly in what we call ‘reverse due process’, which is something the executive authority of any UN agency can do in situations where it’s deemed essential to protect ongoing operations. Our Commissioner-General, Philippe Lazzarini, terminated the staff members’ contracts and referred the investigation to the UN’s top investigative body, the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

  These allegations were later expanded to involve 19 people. We are talking about a tiny percentage of the 30,000 people working for UNRWA. So, the real story here is that in an extremely high-pressure and politicised environment, the vast majority of our staff have remained neutral.

  However, these incidents were misconstrued by Israeli officials and media, leading to unfounded claims that Hamas has infiltrated UNRWA. Allegations against individual staff were turned into accusations against the whole agency. Supporters and social media amplified the claim. It was an attempt to smear our agency. Our detractors want to portray us as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

  How have these allegations affected your work?

  Unfortunately, the allegations gained enough traction to cause several UN member states, including major donors, to suspend funding to our organisation at a time when we’re dealing with the biggest humanitarian crisis in the region in decades.

  This became a huge problem for us. Underfunding constrains our operations and puts our staff at risk. Our facilities have been affected by the war and repeatedly targeted. More than 160 of our facilities have been hit in over 300 separate incidents. Hundreds of people seeking safety in shelters under the UN flag have been injured or killed.

  We have also been refused permission by the Israeli authorities to deliver aid to northern Gaza, exacerbating the ongoing humanitarian crisis. In the West Bank, our staff are routinely intimidated and denied access to our offices in East Jerusalem. In East Jerusalem, our office has been the target of regular protests, vandalism and, most recently, arson attacks.

  We believe in freedom of expression, but not in violence. Some people, including a deputy mayor of Jerusalem, have incited crowds. Their highly inflammatory language soon became real flames. We expected the deputy mayor to apologise, or at least acknowledge these weren’t the right means. But instead, he ramped up his aggressive rhetoric and singled out the next compounds to be attacked. We’re worried about what might come next and whether this campaign of intimidation and active violence might turn into something more serious.

  All in all, the attacks and the disinformation campaign are aimed at dismantling the agency. But we are committed to fulfilling our mandate. We believe passionately in what we do and why we do it. And we count on the invaluable support of UN member states that have publicly affirmed that UN entities have diplomatic privileges and immunities that protect us and our mission.

  What are you doing to rebuild trust among donors?

  In January, the Commissioner-General decided that because of the constant attacks on UNRWA’s reputation, we needed an independent review of our neutrality framework. A few days later, the allegations surfaced. As a result, many people portrayed the independent review as a response to the allegations, but that wasn’t the case.

  Nevertheless, some member states decided to suspend their funding and presented it as a response to the allegations. However, countries such as Australia, Canada and Sweden resumed their support shortly afterwards, either because we were able to reassure them or because they realised that such a decision couldn’t be taken without evidence.

  Last month the independent review was published. It was led by Catherine Colonna, the former French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, and conducted by some Nordic think tanks. This report confirmed that UNRWA has one of the most robust systems of neutrality among both UN and non-governmental organisations. Nevertheless, it made some 50 recommendations to improve our neutrality mechanisms and implementation, which we are implementing. As a result, other member states, such as Germany, decided to restore their funding.

  Different countries need different kinds of reassurance – not just from us, but also internally. We are currently working to bring back two major donors: the UK and the USA, our largest donor. Over the years, the USA has often been a strong supporter of UNRWA, although the level of funding has fluctuated from administration to administration. Unfortunately, the US Congress has blocked all funding for UNRWA until March 2025. To put this in perspective, US contributions make up almost 90 per cent of our US$260 million shortfall.

  We are dealing with a huge humanitarian crisis, and we need enormous amounts of money to alleviate its terrible effects. At the moment, we have enough funds to continue operations until the end of June.

  However, we have also seen a renewed outpouring of support as the suspensions have taken place. Some existing donors, such as Ireland, Norway, Portugal and Spain, have increased their donations. These are very important symbolic gestures, but also very significant contributions to our finances. We have also had new, non-traditional donors, such as Iraq with US$25 million and Algeria with US$15 million.

  Individual and private sector donors came to our aid, contributing more than US$115 million to date. A foundation in Singapore has raised US$5 million through individual and corporate donations, but the support has not only come from Islamic communities. We’ve seen all kind of examples, including an artwork auction organised by artists in Ireland that raised thousands of euros for us. This shows how strong grassroots solidarity for Palestinian refugees currently is.

  How do you see the future of UNRWA?

  Although UNRWA has a long history of financial challenges, we have never faced anything like this. To maintain the quality and level of our services to the Palestinian refugee community across the region, we must find ways to sustain our finances, or we’ll be forced to reduce or even cut our operations after June. This could mean reducing school days or clinic hours, which would be catastrophic.

  We shouldn’t be asked to do something and then not have the funds to do it. But unfortunately, this is quite common in the UN system.

  But there’s a silver lining. Because of this crisis, there is a greater awareness of what UNRWA does and why it’s important. Nobody else can do what we do on the scale that’s needed. If we were to disappear, there would still be a Palestinian refugee question that would need to be addressed. Someone would have to provide the services. The issue is who would replace us.

  Legally, Israel, as the occupying state, must provide for the welfare of the population under occupation. So even if it doesn’t like us, it needs us. We’re just not replaceable. So we need sustainable funding to continue to do the work we’re mandated to do. It’s up to the international community to ensure this budgetary consistency. We hope all donors will return soon.

  What else needs to be done to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza?

  First, we need an immediate ceasefire. We’ve been campaigning for one since the beginning of this war, but it has to happen immediately. There is no other way to ensure people’s wellbeing. We also need a steady, sustained and predictable flow of humanitarian aid to keep people alive. Many people are on the brink of famine. They need food and water, as well as healthcare and shelter.

  The next phase is recovery. People need to be able to return to their homes, which means clearing the huge amount of unexploded ordnance and rebuilding housing.

  After that, we need to restore economic activity, which is the only way to get a society back on its feet. And we need to help people heal psychologically from the horrors and traumatic stress they have experienced. We need to rebuild the health sector and get children back to school.

  All of this must be done, and quickly. But the first step is to secure a ceasefire now, and then we’ll be able to take the next steps.

  ---

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

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

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

• GERMANY: ‘The rise of the far right will make things more difficult, but the EU will remain functional – for now’

  CIVICUS speaks with Andreas Müller, Executive Director of Democracy International, about the European Parliament elections and his expectations for the results in Germany.

  Democracy International is a German civil society organisation working to strengthen civic participation and direct democracy. Its goals are to give people a direct say in political decision-making and to make governments more accountable.

  What’s at stake in the European Parliament elections? 

  In 2024, more people around the world will participate in elections than ever before, setting the political course for years to come. At the same time, we are experiencing the biggest global crisis of security and democracy in decades. The number of democracies worldwide has reached a new low since 1985 and authoritarian regimes are on the rise. The human rights situation in many countries is appalling. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and China’s threats against Taiwan also threaten global peace and security.

  In this context, the 2024 European Parliamentelections are of particular importance. The European Union (EU) is facing immense challenges as a peace project. The security challenge of Russia’s war on Ukraine influences the thematic focus of the elections. The rise of nationalist, right-wing parties in many European countries and accusations that the EU is too bureaucratic, undemocratic and out of touch with people are putting the EU under great pressure.

  Right-wing nationalist parties are exploiting these challenges by offering populist, seemingly simple solutions to these complex crises and fuelling the narrative that the EU is the cause of these problems. Debates aboutrising inflation and economic insecurity, globalisation, immigration and asylum policy are deliberately confused through disinformation in all channels, leading to uncertainty about the EU’s ability to act. As a result, right-wing parties that are critical and hostile of the EU are likely to secure close to a quarter of European Parliament seats.

  This is paradoxical, given that these challenges can only be met with a functioning EU. Strong, progressive legislation is needed to address climate, security and democracy crises. However, the expected rise of right-wing, nationalist parties is likely to lead to more blockages and delays, threatening the functioning of European democracy and the rule of law.

  The main task of all democratic parties in the European Parliament in the next legislative period will be to counter this development. Large civil society alliances and parties are urging people to vote against this trend. Following the reversal of the negative trend in voter turnout in 2019, efforts are being made to achieve at least 50 per cent turnout across the EU.

  What are the likely outcomes in Germany?

  In Germany, voter turnout has risen from a low of just 43 per cent in 2004 to 61.4 per cent in 2019, back to 1994 levels. This trend is expected to continue, particularly given that, for the first time, people between 16 and 18 will be able to vote, and two-thirds of them have said they intend to do so.

  However, higher turnout alone will not prevent the rise of right-wing parties. Predictions are that the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) could come second or third in Germany. Only the conservative Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria are far ahead in the polls. The governing parties of thetraffic-light coalition – the Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Free Democratic Party – are expected to lose votes compared to the previous European Parliament election in 2019.

  Still, there is reason for hope: since the beginning of the year, the AfD has lost significant support in the polls. While it received 23 per cent in January 2024, it is now getting only 15 per cent. The reasons for this include a series ofscandals involving the party’s top candidate and other officials, which led to the party’sexclusion from the right-wing Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament.

  Overall, the democratic centre in Germany remains clearly in the majority in this EU election, albeit with a loss of votes compared to the AfD.

  What are the main issues likely to influence the outcome?

  The main issues in this election are Germany’s role in relation to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine and the question of arms supplies. The threat to security and peace is at the centre of most political debates. The second most important issue is social and economic security, often discussed in connection with immigration and asylum policy, a theme particularly fuelled by the AfD. These two issues regularly alternate in first and second place in the polls. Climate and environmental issues have lost prominence compared to 2019.

  The expected increase in voter turnout suggests a growing interest among German voters. Overall, voters’ understanding of global issues and crises and of the role of the EU has increased. However, domestic issues and opinions on national government policies remain the decisive factors accounting for voting decisions. In Germany, the outcome of the EU election is a mood indicator for national politics. Specific European issues tend to play a subordinate role.

  Are there significant differences between young and older voters, and between men and women?

  Like German society as a whole, the younger generation is not homogeneous. However, young people tend to be more supportive of the EU than older generations. Around 78 per cent of young people support the continuation of the European project, compared with 65 per cent of older people. But, according to the latest polls, young people are not expected to vote in higher numbers than older people.

  Young voters differ from older ones on several issues. While both age groups share concerns about peace and security and the impact of Russian aggression, young people are more likely to be concerned about human and civil rights and climate change. On social and economic issues, young people are particularly concerned about affordable housing, equal opportunities and protection against poverty in old age. Migration and asylum issues are less important to them.

  When it comes to gender, there is a noticeable gap in voting decisions. In Germany, women generally vote more left-progressive, while men tend to vote more conservative. This trend has intensified in recent years. The gender gap is most significant among young people. According topolls, 18 per cent of young men intend to vote for the AfD, compared to eight per cent of young women.

  What would be the consequences of the rise of the far right in the European Parliament?

  A rise of right-wing, nationalist parties in the European Parliament means the legislative body would have to deal with obstructionism and anti-EU behaviour. However, all polls predict a continued strong democratic majority for the political centre. So while the growth of the right wing will make political work more difficult and uncomfortable, the EU will remain functional, at least for the time being. Whether mainstream parties can counter the nationalist narrative remains to be seen. It will be crucial to tackle the security crises of coming years and ensure social and economic security.

  For Germany, the election is a bellwether for upcoming national elections, particularly next year’s parliamentary election. The AfD’s decline in the polls is also noticeable at the national and state levels, although less so than in the EU elections, and the reasons for this are mainly attributable to the AfD itself. At the moment, all democratic parties have ruled out cooperation with the AfD, so the risk of right-wing populists entering government remains low.

  Examples fromHungary,Italy andthe Netherlands show this is a European trend that’s been going on for a long time. All these examples have already had consequences for the rule of law, democratic freedoms, human rights and overall societal interaction.

  Germany is not immune to this, and the pressure from right-wing populist and nationalist parties and opinions is very real here as well. Political discourse is increasingly shifting towards the right. If the AfD keeps gaining ground, it will get worse.

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

  Get in touch with Democracy International through itswebsite orFacebook andYouTube pages, and follow@democracy_intl and@AndreasM_CGN on Twitter.

• GLOBAL ARMS TRADE: ‘By halting the supply of weapons, states can help prevent human rights violations’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  How does Control Arms work for effective arms control?

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

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

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

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

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

  What are the ATT’s key provisions?

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

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

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

  What are the challenges to the ATT’s effectiveness?

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

  What further agreements or regulations are needed?

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

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

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

  ---

  Get in touch with the Control Arms through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram page, and follow@controlarms on Twitter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ---

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

• GLOBAL SECURITY: ‘NATO remains as relevant today as it was when it was established in 1949’

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

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

  How relevant is NATO today?

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

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

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

  How has NATO evolved over time?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What are the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO ?

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

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

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

  How are relations between Europe and NATO?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What’s the ICJ and why is it important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Why’s it so hard to prove genocidal intent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What challenges does the ICJ face?

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

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

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

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

  Get in touch with Neshan through LinkedIn.

  ---

  

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