Human Rights

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares54 Views

    Five key points on how a long-respected US human rights report became a ‘cudgel’ under Trump

    by

    In May, Donald Trump took to the stage at a business conference in Saudi Arabia’s capital, promising that the US would no longer chastise other governments over human rights issues or lecture them on “how to live and how to govern your own affairs”.With the release this week of the US government’s annual report on human rights worldwide, the president has – in part – followed though on that pledge.The report – compiled by the state department – softens its criticism of nations that have sought closer ties with the US president, while alleging “significant” human rights breaches among traditional allies across Europe, all while vastly scaling back criticism of discrimination against minority groups.Hungary and El Salvador receive softer treatmentThe report’s claims of “no credible” human rights abuses in Hungary and El Salvador sit at odds with the state department’s own report from a year earlier, which described the situation in Hungary as “deteriorating”, while highlighting “arbitrary killings”, “enforced disappearance” and “torture” in El Salvador.In April, a delegation of EU lawmakers warned that the rule of law in Hungary is “rapidly going in the wrong direction” under Viktor Orbán’s government. They highlighted threats to press freedom and targeting of minorities. In June a law banning content about LGBTQ+ people from schools and TV was found to violate basic human rights and freedom of expression by a scholar at the European court of justice.Meanwhile, activists and opposition leaders in El Salvador have warned the country is on the path towards dictatorship after its congress scrapped presidential term limits, paving the way for President Nayib Bukele to seek indefinite re-election. Bukele’s hardline approach to crime has been accompanied by an assault on civil society and democratic institutions.Orbán and Bukele have both positioned themselves as Trump adherents – with El Salvador opening up a notorious mega-prison to detain US deportees. Orbán, who came to power in 2010, was once described as “Trump before Trump” by the US president’s former adviser Steve Bannon.European countries singled outFrance, Germany and the United Kingdom are among the European countries singled out as having seen a worsening human rights situation. The picture is a far cry from the previous report, which saw no significant changes.Criticism over the handling of free speech – in particular relating to regulations on online hate speech – was directed at the governments of the UK, Germany and France.The criticism comes despite the US itself moving aggressively to deny or strip visas of foreign nationals over their statements and social media postings, especially student activists who have criticised Israel.Since being returning to power, Trump and his administration have stepped up criticism of traditional allies – in February the vice-president, JD Vance, accused European leaders of suppressing free speech, failing to halt illegal migration and running in fear from voters’ true beliefs.The report also singles out Brazil, where Trump has decried the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil, the report says, has “undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to ‘undermine democracy.’”Israel-Gaza warThe report’s section on Israel and the Palestinian territories is much shorter than last year’s edition and contains no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. It acknowledges cases of arbitrary arrests and killings by Israel but says authorities took “credible steps” to identify those responsible.More than 61,000 people have been killed in Gaza, the Gaza health ministry says, as a result of Israel’s military assault after an attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023 in which 1,200 people were killed.Notable omissionsSections within the report highlighting discrimination have been vastly pared back. Any criticism focused on LGBTQI rights, gender-based violence or racial and ethnic violence which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appear to have been largely removed.A group of former state department officials called some omissions “shocking,” particularly highlighting the lack of detail on Uganda, which in 2023 saw the passing of some of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world, including the death penalty for some homosexual acts.The backlashFor decades, the report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy – but critics have labelled this year’s edition politically driven.“The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts,” says Josh Paul, a former state department official, adding “the outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda.”In April, secretary of state Marco Rubio wrote an opinion piece saying the bureau that prepares the report had become a platform for “left-wing activists,” and vowed that the Trump administration would reorient it to focus on “western values”.State department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the report was restructured to improve readability and was no longer an expansive list of “politically biased demands and assertions”.Democratic party lawmakers, however, have accused Trump and Rubio of treating human rights only as a “cudgel” against adversaries, in a statement released this week.Rubio’s state department has “shamelessly turned a once-credible tool of US foreign policy mandated by Congress into yet another instrument to advance Maga political grievances and culture war obsessions,” said Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.With Reuters More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      State department softens human rights criticisms of Trump-allied countries

      by

      Donald Trump’s administration has significantly changed a key US government report on human rights worldwide, dramatically softening criticism of some countries that have been strong partners of the Republican president, such as El Salvador and Israel, which rights groups say have well-established histories of abuses.Instead, the US state department sounded an alarm about what it said was the erosion of freedom of speech in Europe and ramped up criticism of Brazil and South Africa – both of which Washington has clashed with over a host of issues.Criticism of governments over their treatment of LGBTQ+ rights, which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appeared to have been largely omitted. Washington referred to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine mainly as the “Russia-Ukraine war”.The report’s section on Israel was much shorter than last year’s edition and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. About 61,000 people have died, according to the Gaza health ministry, as a result of Israel’s military operations in response to an attack by the Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023.The report was delayed for months as Trump appointees altered an earlier state department draft dramatically to bring it in line with “America First” values, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The report introduced new categories such as “Life”, “Liberty” and “Security of the Person”.“There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,” the 2024 report said about El Salvador, in sharp contrast with the 2023 report that talked about “significant human rights issues” and listed them as credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, and harsh and life-threatening prison conditions.Washington’s bilateral ties with El Salvador have strengthened since Trump took office, as the administration has deported people to El Salvador with help from President Nayib Bukele, whose country is receiving $6m from the US to house the migrants in a high-security mega-prison.The Trump administration has moved away from the traditional US promotion of democracy and human rights, seeing it as interference in another country’s affairs, even as it criticized countries selectively, consistent with its broader policy towards a particular country.One example is Europe, where Trump officials repeatedly weighed in on European politics to denounce what they see as suppression of rightwing leaders, including in Romania, Germany and France, and accused European authorities of censoring views such as criticism of immigration.For decades, the state department’s congressionally mandated Human Rights Report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy.This year’s report was prepared after a major revamp of the department, which included the firing of hundreds of people, many from the agency’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which takes the lead in writing the report.The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, in April wrote an opinion piece that said the bureau had become a platform for “left-wing activists”, saying the Trump administration would reorient the bureau to focus on “Western values”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn Brazil, where the Trump administration has clashed with the government, the state department found the human rights situation declined, after the 2023 report found no significant changes. This year’s report took aim at the courts, stating they took action undermining freedom of speech and disproportionately suppressing the speech of supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro, among others.Bolsonaro is on trial before the supreme court on charges he conspired with allies to violently overturn his 2022 presidential election loss to the leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Trump has referred to the case as a “witch-hunt” and called it grounds for a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods.In South Africa, whose government the Trump administration has accused of racial discrimination towards Afrikaners, this year’s report said the human rights situation significantly worsened. It stated: “South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country.”In last year’s report, the state department found no significant changes in the human rights situation in South Africa.Trump, earlier this year, issued an executive order that called for the US to resettle Afrikaners, describing them as victims of “violence against racially disfavored landowners”, allegations that echoed far-right claims but which have been contested by South Africa’s government. More

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s foreign policy is not so unusual for the US – he just drops the facade of moral leadership

      by

      JD Vance is an Iraq war veteran and the US vice-president. On Friday, he declared the doctrine that underpinned Washington’s approach to international relations for a generation is now dead.“We had a long experiment in our foreign policy that traded national defence and the maintenance of our alliances for nation building and meddling in foreign countries’ affairs, even when those foreign countries had very little to do with core American interests,” Vance told Naval Academy graduates in Annapolis, Maryland.His boss Donald Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East signified an end to all that, Vance said: “What we’re seeing from President Trump is a generational shift in policy with profound implications for the job that each and every one of you will be asked to do.”US foreign policy has previously zigged and zagged from isolation to imperialism. Woodrow Wilson entered the first world war with the the goal of “making the world safe for democracy”. Washington retreated from the world again during the 1920s and 1930s only to fight the second world war and emerge as a military and economic superpower.Foreign policy during the cold war centered on countering the Soviet Union through alliances, military interventions and proxy wars. The 11 September 2001 attacks shifted focus to counterterrorism, leading to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under George W Bush with justifications that included spreading democracy.Barack Obama emphasized diplomacy and reducing troop commitments, though drone strikes and counterterrorism operations persisted. Trump’s first term pushed economic nationalism, pressuring allies to pay their way. Joe Biden restored multilateralism, focusing on climate, alliances and countering China’s influence.As in many other political arenas, Trump’s second term is bolder and louder on the world stage.Trump and Vance have sought to portray the “America first” policy as a clean break from the recent past. Human rights, democracy, foreign aid and military intervention are out. Economic deals, regional stability and pragmatic self-interest are in.But former government officials interviewed by the Guardian paint a more nuanced picture, suggesting that Trump’s quid pro quo approach has more in common with his predecessors than it first appears. Where he does differ, they argue, is in his shameless abandonment of moral leadership and use of the US presidency for personal gain.On a recent four-day swing through Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, Trump was feted by autocratic rulers with a trio of lavish state visits where there was heavy emphasis on economic and security partnerships.Saudi Arabia pledged $600bn in investments in the US across industries such as energy, defence, technology and infrastructure, although how much of that will actually be new investment – or come to fruition – remains to be seen. A $142bn defence cooperation agreement was described by the White House as the biggest in US history.Qatar and the US inked agreements worth $1.2tn, including a $96bn purchase of Boeing jets. The UAE secured more than $200bn in commercial agreements and a deal to establish the biggest artificial intelligence campus outside the US.Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic magazine, said Trump had shown “the outlines of America’s newest foreign policy doctrine: extreme transactionalism”. He had prioritized quick deals over long-term stability, ideological principles or established alliances. But, Goldberg noted, the president had also advanced the cause of his family’s businesses.The president said he will accept a $400m luxury plane from Qatar and use it as Air Force One. Abu Dhabi is using a Trump family-aligned stablecoin for a $2bn investment in the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. And the Trump Organization, run by the president’s two oldest sons, is developing major property projects including a high-rise tower in Jeddah, a luxury hotel in Dubai, and a golf course and villa complex in Qatar.Analysts say no US president has received overseas gifts on such a scale. Aaron David Miller, who served for two decades as a state department analyst, negotiator and adviser on Middle East issues for both Democratic and Republican administrations, said: “He gives transactionalism a bad name.“The level of self-dealing in this administration means the notion that the national interest is now seamlessly blended with Donald Trump’s personal interests and financial interests. The concept of an American national interest that transcends party politics and partisanship has gone the way of the dodo.”Ned Price, a former US state department spokesperson during the Biden administration, said: “I actually think calling this ‘transactional’ is far too charitable, because so much of this is predicated not on the national interest but on the president’s own personal interest, including his economic interests and the economic interests of his family and those around him.”Presidential trips to the Middle East usually feature at least some public calls for authoritarian governments to improve their human rights efforts. But not from Trump as he toured the marble and gilded palaces of Gulf rulers and deemed them “perfecto” and “very hard to buy” while barely mentioning the war in Gaza.In his remarks at a VIP business conference in Riyadh, the president went out of his way to distance himself from the actions of past administrations, the days when he said US officials would fly in “in beautiful planes, giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs”.Trump said: “The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons or liberal non-profits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut Price challenges the notion that Trump’s aversion to interventionism represents revolution rather than evolution. “It is fair to say that presidents have successively been moving in that direction,” he said.“The sort of military adventurism that characterised the George W Bush presidency is not something that President Obama had an appetite for. It’s not something that President Biden had an appetite for. President Obama’s version of ‘Don’t do stupid shit’ has echoes of what President Trump said. Of course, as he often does, President Trump took it one step further.”Price added: “Most people who worked under President Biden or President Obama would tell you it doesn’t have to be either/or: you don’t have to be a nation builder or an isolationist. You can engage on the basis of interest and values at the same time and it’s about calibrating the mix rather than declaring the age of nation building is entirely over and from now on we’re not going to lecture, we’re just going to come in and be feted with your goods.”In his address in Riyadh, Trump made no reference to the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul which, the CIA found, had been sanctioned by the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. The president’s willingness to turn a blind eye to human rights violations was condemned by Democrats.Ro Khanna, who serves on the House of Representatives’ armed services committee, said: “I was opposed to the Iraq war and I’m opposed to this idea that we can just go in and build nations. But I’m not opposed to the idea of human rights and international law.“To see an American president basically embrace cultural relativism was a rejection of any notion that American values about freedom and rule of law are not just our cultural constructs but are universal values.”Khanna added: “The past century of development in global governance structures has pointed us towards human rights and dignity. He wants to go back to a a world where we just have nation-states and that was the world that had wars and colonialism and conflict.”Trump is hardly the first president to court oil-rich nations in the Middle East and tread lightly on human rights issues. Nor is he the first to be accused of putting interests before values. The public was deceived to justify wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Democratically elected leaders have been ousted and brutal dictators propped up when it suited US policy goals.John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Trump, said: “Different presidencies say they have different priorities but I would be willing to go down the list and all of their record is mixed and somewhat hypocritical in terms of exactly what they do on the values side of things. Just take Biden as the most recent example. He started off by calling Saudi Arabia a pariah but by the end of it he was going to visit the crown prince as well.”In that sense, Trump’s lack of pretension to an ethical foreign policy might strike some as refreshingly honest. His supporters have long praised him for “telling it like it is” and refusing to indulge the moral platitudes of career politicians.Miller, the former state department official who is now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinktank in Washington, said: “He’s made explicit what is implicit in Republican and Democratic administrations. I’m not saying presidents don’t care about values; Joe Biden cared a lot about American values. But the reality is, when it comes time to make choices, where or what do we choose?”Miller added: “No administration I ever worked for made human rights or the promotion of democracy the centerpiece of our foreign policy. There are any number of reasons for that. But Donald Trump, it seems to me, is not even pretending there are values. He’s emptied the ethical and moral frame of American foreign policy.”Trump’s lifelong aversion to war is seen by many as a positive, including by some on the left. But it comes with an apparent desire to achieve significant and flashy diplomatic breakthroughs that might win him the Nobel peace prize. The president also displays an obvious comfort and preference for dealing with strongmen who flatter him, often siding with Russia’s Vladimir Putin against Ukraine.Miller commented: “Trump has no clear conception of the national interest. It’s subordinated to his grievances, his pet projects – tariffs – his political interests, his vanity, his financial interests. I worked for half a dozen secretaries of state of both political parties. That he is so far out of the norm with respect to foreign policy frankly is less of a concern to me than what’s happening here at home.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      What the last Trump presidency can teach us about fighting back | Kenneth Roth

      by

      As Donald Trump abandons any pretense of promoting human rights abroad, he has sparked concern about the future of the human rights movement. The US government has never been a consistent promoter of human rights, but when it applied itself, it was certainly the most powerful. Yet this is not the first time that the human rights movement has faced a hostile administration in Washington. A collective defense by other governments has been the key to survival in the past. That remains true today.Trump no doubt poses a serious threat. He is enamored of autocrats who rule without the checks and balances on executive power that he would shirk. He has stopped participating in the UN human rights council and censored the US state department’s annual human rights report. He has summarily sent immigrants to El Salvador’s nightmarish mega-prison, proposed the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and threatened to abandon Ukraine’s democracy to Vladimir Putin’s invading forces.Even when his government has occasionally issued a rights-related protest – regarding Thailand’s deportation of Uyghurs to China or Rwanda’s invasion of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo via its cold-blooded M23 proxy force – the intervention has been half-hearted and not sustained.Yet the human rights movement survived Trump’s hostility during his first term, as well as such challenges as the George W Bush administration’s systematic torture and arbitrary detention in Guantánamo Bay and the Ronald Reagan administration’s support for brutal cold war allies. The most effective response, as I describe in my recent book, Righting Wrongs, was always to build coalitions of governments willing to defend human rights. Together, they had the moral and political clout to hold the line despite US opposition.In the first Trump administration, for example, the UN human rights council condemned Nicolás Maduro’s dictatorship in Venezuela and established a fact-finding mission to monitor and report on his repression. Had Trump led the effort, Maduro might have dismissed it as Yanqui imperialism, but Trump had withdrawn from the council. Instead, the effort was led by a group of Latin American democracies plus Canada, operating as the Lima Group. They offered a principled defense of human rights that prevailed.Similarly, Trump played no role when my colleagues and I encouraged Germany, France and Turkey to pressure Vladimir Putin to stop Syrian-Russian bombing of hospitals and other civilian institutions in Syria’s north-western Idlib province. That initiative forced Putin to halt the bombing in March 2020, sparing 3 million civilians the constant threat of death from the skies. In December 2024, the HTS rebel group emerged from Idlib to overthrow Syria’s ruthless president, Bashar al-Assad.Nor was the US supportive when, in September 2017, the Netherlands led a small group of governments that persuaded the council to investigate and report on the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing of civilians in Yemen. When that scrutiny was lifted four years later, Yemeni civilian casualties doubled, showing that the bombers had behaved better when watched.When Trump withdrew from the council, the United States was replaced by tiny Iceland. Aided by the perception that it had no special interest other than a principled concern with human rights, it convinced the council to scrutinize the “drug war” summary executions by the former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte. Duterte is now in custody in the Hague on an international criminal court arrest warrant.Even Democratic presidents have sometimes vehemently opposed human rights initiatives. Bill Clinton’s administration was dead set against the creation of an international criminal court that could ever prosecute a US citizen. It tried one ploy after another to secure an exemption.A coalition of some 60 small and medium-sized governments from all parts of the world resisted. Their combined moral clout was enough to stand up to the superpower. When the final vote was held in Rome to establish the ICC in July 1998, the United States lost overwhelmingly, 120 to 7. A comparable coalition was behind the adoption of the treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, despite opposition by Washington and other major powers.Similar coalitions are key to defending human rights today. We see that already as an array of European governments refuses to accept Trump’s inclination to sacrifice Ukraine’s democracy to Putin’s aggression. We see it as Arab states, despite jeopardizing substantial US military aid, reject Trump’s war-crime proposal to “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza by expelling the Palestinians. We see it as the UN human rights council, despite the US absence, continues to play an essential role in defending rights in such countries as Myanmar, North Korea, Belarus and Iran.But there is much more to be done.For example, Trump shows little interest in the fate of the Uyghurs. He once reportedly told Xi Jinping that China’s detention of 1 million of them (of a population of 11 million) “was exactly the right thing to do”. But western governments have not yet matched US law, adopted under Joe Biden, that presumptively bars all imports from the Chinese region of Xinjiang, where most Uyghurs live, unless the imports can be proven not to have been made through forced labor.That is an important way to avoid complicity when Beijing blocks efforts to investigate supply chains in China. If other western governments went beyond a theoretical opposition to Uyghur forced labor, which cannot be upheld amid China’s obfuscation, to adopt a similar presumption against all imports from Xinjiang, it would go a long way toward ending this despicable practice.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Biden administration imposed sanctions on seven United Arab Emirates companies for their role in arming the genocidal Rapid Support Forces in Sudan’s Darfur region, where one of the world’s worst atrocity-induced humanitarian crises is unfolding. Other western governments should match or extend those penalties.Rwandan president Paul Kagame’s invasion of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo via the M23 force also calls out for concerted resistance. In 2013, the Obama administration, working closely with the British government, forced Kagame to end his support of the M23 by threatening to suspend Rwanda’s aid. The M23 immediately collapsed. Now that Rwanda is again using the M23 to invade eastern DRC, similar pressure is needed – not just condemnation, which has happened, but the suspension of aid, which has only begun to occur.The Trump administration, evidently seeking access to the region’s mineral wealth, has helped to negotiate a ceasefire between Rwanda and DRC but not the withdrawal of Rwandan forces or the M23 from DRC. That next step will come only with tougher economic pressure. But the European Union has done the opposite. In July 2024, it entered into a deal with Rwanda for minerals, a virtual invitation to export the proceeds of illegal mining in eastern DRC. Trump now seems to be doing the same.Western governments have also been tepid in responding to Trump’s outrageous sanctions on the international criminal court prosecutor Karim Khan (freezing his assets and limiting his travel to the United States) for having quite properly charged Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli prime minister’s former defense minister Yoav Gallant for the war crime of starving and depriving Palestinian civilians in Gaza. All ICC members should support Khan if he in turn criminally charges Trump for obstruction of justice under article 70 of the Rome Statute, which prohibits threatening or intimidating court personnel for the performance of their official duties – exactly what Trump has done.Despite Trump’s expressed interest in staying on as “king”, his reign will end. The question is what damage he will do to the human rights cause. Whether he leaves a global crisis or merely a discredited US government will depend in significant part on how other governments respond – whether they emulate or resist Trump’s indifference.Today, many governments are understandably concerned with simply managing the turmoil that Trump has caused, from tariff increases to military abandonment, but the need is urgent for them also to keep their broader responsibilities in mind. History shows that if they mount a concerted defense, the human rights movement will survive this rough patch. The rights of people around the world depend on such a principled, collective commitment.

      Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments, was published by Knopf and Allen Lane in February More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on attacks on lawyers: democracies must stand up for justice | Editorial

      by

      What the law says on paper is irrelevant if it cannot be upheld, or even stated clearly. That is why lawyers are targeted – with harassment, disbarment from the profession or even jail – by repressive regimes.Russia’s attempts to suppress the voice of the opposition leader Alexei Navalny did not end with his death in an Arctic prison colony. In a bleak coda, three of his lawyers have been jailed for several years. Vadim  Kobzev, Alexei Liptser and Igor Sergunin were found guilty of participating in an “extremist organisation” for relaying his messages to the outside world.The Center for Human Rights in Iran warned earlier this year that Iranian lawyers were being kicked out of the profession, arrested and jailed for representing protesters and dissidents. As its executive director, Hadi Ghaemi, noted: “Every lawyer imprisoned or disbarred represents many defendants whose rights have been trampled and now lack legal defence.”In China, where more than 300 human rights lawyers who had dared to take on sensitive cases were detained in 2015’s “709” crackdown, the pressure continues. As a grim joke had it at the height of the campaign, “even lawyers’ lawyers need lawyers” – those who represented arrested friends were then seized themselves.The unrelenting nature of the clampdown is particularly striking when, as one Chinese lawyer, Liang Xiaojun, observed: “We know we can’t win.” When the verdict is clear before a case has started, lawyers can only offer solidarity, spread their clients’ stories, and highlight the gulf between legal theory and reality. But in doing so, they challenge the official narrative. Targeting these lawyers didn’t just signal that resistance only invites further trouble. It attacked the concept of the rule of law itself, which lawyers had attempted to assert, hammering home the message that the party’s power was unassailable.The Council of Europe warned earlier this month that there are increasing reports of harassment, threats and other attacks on the practice of law internationally. The human rights body has adopted the first international treaty aiming to protect the profession of lawyer. Member states should now ratify this. Lawyers must be defended, as they defend others and the concepts of rules and justice.That message is more important than ever as the Trump administration turns on lawyers and judges as part of its broader assault on the institutions of US democracy and the principles that underpin them. The sanctioning of staff at the international criminal court is only the most flagrant example. William R Bay, president of the American Bar Association, told members in a recent letter: “Government actions evidence a clear and disconcerting pattern. If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted. If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or … represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted.” Government lawyers too have faced “personal attacks, intimidation, firings and demotions for simply fulfilling their professional responsibilities”.Democratic governments and civil society must speak up for the law wherever it is threatened. Mr Bay is right to urge those in the profession to stand up and be counted. “If we don’t speak now, when will we speak?” he asks. The law still counts – both materially and culturally – in the US. Those who practise it need some of the courage in resisting abuses that their counterparts have shown elsewhere.  More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      UN human rights chief ‘deeply worried by fundamental shift’ in US

      by

      The UN human rights chief has warned of a “fundamental shift” in the US and sounded the alarm over the growing power of “unelected tech oligarchs”, in a stinging rebuke of Washington weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency.Volker Türk said there had been bipartisan support for human rights in the US for decades but said he was “now deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction that is taking place domestically and internationally”.Without referring to Trump by name, Türk, an Austrian lawyer who heads the UN’s rights body, criticised the Republican president’s measures to overturn longstanding equity and anti-discrimination policies, as well as repeated threats against the media and politicians.“In a paradoxical mirror image, policies intended to protect people from discrimination are now labelled as discriminatory. Progress is being rolled back on gender equality,” Türk said in comments to the UN human rights council in Geneva.“Disinformation, intimidation and threats, notably against journalists and public officials, risk undermining the work of independent media and the functioning of institutions,” he added. “Divisive rhetoric is being used to distort, deceive and polarise. This is generating fear and anxiety among many.”Since returning to power, Trump has continued to attack the press. Last month, he barred the Associated Press news agency – on which local and international media have traditionally relied for US government reporting – from the White House.His administration has launched a purge of anti-discrimination policies under the umbrella term of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and moved to slash rights for transgender people. At the same time, the administration has sent panic through communities with its widespread and muddled immigration crackdown.Internationally, the US has moved to withdraw funding for international organisations that promote health and human rights, such as the World Health Organization, and imposed economic sanctions on the international criminal court, which is investigating war crimes in Gaza.Washington’s traditional allies, including Canada, France and Germany, are feeling increasingly alarmed as Trump lashes out at democratic leaders while expressing a fondness for autocrats, including the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.In his speech on Monday, Türk presented a concerned overview of the global rights situation, saying the world was “going through a period of turbulence and unpredictability”.“[What] we are experiencing goes to the very core of the international order – an order that has brought us an unprecedented level of global stability. We cannot allow the fundamental global consensus around international norms and institutions, built painstakingly over decades, to crumble before our eyes.”He called out the growing influence wielded by “a handful of unelected tech oligarchs” who “have our data: they know where we live, what we do, our genes and our health conditions, our thoughts, our habits, our desires and our fears”.Türk added: “They know how to manipulate us.”While his comments were not directed at the US, they come at a time of rising and consolidated power among American tech and social media billionaires who have fallen in line behind Trump.They include Elon Musk, who owns X and has been the 78-year-old president’s most prominent backer, but also Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, who has ended factchecking programmes on Facebook and Instagram – a move the UN chief, António Guterres, has warned will open the “floodgates to more hate, more threats, and more violence”.Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the world’s third-richest man and owner of the Washington Post, which in the last US presidential election declined to endorse a candidate for the first time in decades, recently banned opinion articles that did not support his views on “personal liberties and free markets”.Türk, whose comments were not limited to the situation in the US but could also apply to tech leaders in China and India, said that “any form of unregulated power can lead to oppression, subjugation, and even tyranny – the playbook of the autocrat”. More

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Could new US sanctions threaten future of West Bank settlements? | Emma Graham-Harrison and Quique Kierszenbaum

      by

      Escalating US sanctions on violent settlers, initially taken as a mostly political rebuke to extremists, are now seen by some inside Israel as a potential threat to the financial viability of all Israeli settlements and companies in the occupied West Bank.The Biden administration’s new controls on a handful of men and organisations linked to attacks on Palestinian civilians, first announced in February then expanded twice in March and April, have generally been treated in Israel and beyond more as a humiliating public censure of a close ally than as a major political shift.But experts from across Israel’s political spectrum say this underestimates the ferocity with which the US implements its financial controls and the scope of the new sanctions framework.They told the Observer that the relatively small list of sanctions targets in West Bank settlements could still prompt financial institutions to draw back from offering services to any people or companies based there, because of fears they could accidentally facilitate illegal transactions.And while sanctions so far have focused only on violent individuals and small groups, a new executive order gives the US a very broad remit to target any person or entity “responsible for or complicit in … threaten[ing] the peace, security, or stability of the West Bank”.That explicitly includes politicians who support or enable them, stating actions subject to sanctions include “directing, enacting, implementing, enforcing or failing to enforce policies”, wording that could be used to target people at the heart of Israel’s government.“Israel must do more to stop violence against civilians in the West Bank and hold accountable those responsible,” US secretary of state Antony Blinken said in a statement that linked the sanctions to supporting the creation of a Palestinian state.“The United States will continue to take actions to advance [its] foreign policy objectives … including the viability of a two-state solution.”Many banks are already re-assessing their dealings with the West Bank after a warning from FinCEN, the US government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said Shuki Friedman, a law scholar, global sanctions consultant and former head of Israel’s Iran sanctions programme.“Even though the [US executive] order is sanctioning only few individuals, in practice it’s actually casting a shadow on all activities that come through the West Bank,” he said.“It delegitimises them in a way that if you’re a financial institution, insurance company, institutional investor, hedge fund, anything to do with these activities, you will be cautious about it. You take a step back. This is the real meaning of this order.”Michael Sfard, one of Israel’s leading human rights lawyers, initially saw the order as a “political message” from the Biden administration as it tried to respond to voter pressure over its support for Israel as the war in Gaza raged. Nearly three months on, he believes the sanctions are potentially the most consequential shift in US policy for many years, one that could even halt the creeping annexation of the West Bank.“The sanction regime could redraw the Green Line,” Sfard said, referring to Israel’s internationally recognised boundaries from the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.The Yesha Council, which lobbies the government on behalf of settlers, effectively acknowledged the sanctions reflected a policy shift which could threaten their future, even as it dismissed the bans as “absurd” and said they had “zero impact”.“This isn’t truly about a few individuals,” a spokeswoman said. “This is about foreign governments, led by the Biden administration, sanctioning and potentially sanctioning any Israeli who doesn’t share their vision of a so-called ‘two-state solution’.”The settlement movement began soon after the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem were seized in the six-day war in 1967. Its goal is to take areas officially under temporary occupation, which were supposed to form the heart of an independent Palestine, and build communities and roads that would weave them irrevocably into the fabric of Israel.View image in fullscreenAlthough illegal under international law, there are now 500,000 Israelis living in West Bank settlements, about 5% of the population.“The Green Line doesn’t exist in the Israeli political system, in Israeli economic life, in transportation and infrastructure. You can live and do business in the settlements without any disruption,” Sfard said.But if the US expands the list of sanctions targets to include businesses linked to violent settlers it could become impossible for Israeli banks to keep serving businesses and communities in the West Bank.In the wake of the first wave of sanctions, Israeli institutions came under domestic pressure to keep serving the targets. The public that didn’t understand that if the banks wanted to operate in a global system that runs on dollars, they had no choice about complying with American orders.Other countries like Russia and Iran have partially shifted their trade to other allies and rebuilt finance systems after coming under US sanctions, but Israel has no real alternatives.“These sanctions could potentially force Israelis to make a choice, between supporting settler extremists and keeping a connection to the international financial system,” Sfard said. “If they have to chose between a weekend in Rome or shopping in Oxford Street and supporting settlers, I know what many will chose.”Key to the potential impact of the new US regime are “secondary sanctions”, which are imposed not for doing things the US considers criminal – in the case of the initial sanctions list, attacking Palestinian civilians – but for helping people and companies on that list evade the bans.Anyone who makes a transaction for someone under sanctions, on purpose or unintentionally, could join them on the US blacklist.“Very quickly once you have a scattered number of designated individuals and entities the whole West Bank settlement world becomes a minefield,” said Sfard. “The banking system doesn’t want to risk being charged with providing any kind of support to designated individuals. So every attempt to do business means reviewing whether you might stumble on a risk of secondary sanctions.”Not everyone in Israel thinks the sanctions are a game changer. Human rights activist Yehuda Shaul welcomed the executive order but said if the US wants to halt violence it needs to target funding more directly.“One shouldn’t only go after violent individuals,” he said, pointing out that young men attacking Palestinians are not managing the broader political project. “At 25 I didn’t have the financial capacity to build a house on hilltop with road and utilities and 500 cows. Someone is funding them.”Others including Yehuda Shaffer, former deputy state attorney and head of Israel’s financial intelligence unit, believe Israeli banks can stick to very targeted enforcement that will have few wider repercussions.He described the sanctions as “lip service” from a US administration under pressure. “It looks to me like an attempt to give a sense of even-handed policy, even though to be truthful, the Americans are very much supporting Israel in this war.”In putting Israel in company with rogue states like North Korea, and some of America’s most bitter international enemies, the sanctions are humiliating.“It is embarrassing and somewhat disappointing,” said Shaffer. “The sanctions suggest somehow that the Israeli rule of law is not up to American expectations.”But he thinks the impact will be limited with banks strictly enforcing controls on the individuals and organisations named by the US, while continuing to serve the West Bank more broadly.Even as he sees cause for hope in tempering violence, Sfard, says it is early days for the programme. “Even if the US means business on sanctions now, it might not stay the course,” he said.“When trying to introduce new measures to pressure Israel on this issue, it is better not to introduce them than to do it and fail to have any impact, as that gives a sense of power to settlers.” More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Alabama is using the notion that embryos are people to surveil and harass women | Moira Donegan

      by

      Something that’s important to remember about last week’s ruling by the Alabama supreme court, which held that frozen embryos were persons under state law, is that the very absurdity of the claim is itself a demonstration of power. That a frozen embryo – a microscopic bit of biological information that can’t even be called tissue, a flick laden with the hopes of aspiring parents but fulfilling none of them – is equivalent in any way to a child is the sort of thing you can only say if no one has the power to laugh at you. The Alabama supreme court is the final court of review in that state. It cannot be appealed. For the foreseeable future, frozen cells in Alabama have the same legal status there as you or I do. Is this an absurd elevation of the status of an embryo, or an obscene degradation of human beings? The answer, of course, is both.The decision immediately halted almost all IVF procedures in Alabama. Aspiring patents there – including women who had undergone rounds of injected hormone treatments and the invasive, gruelingly painful egg retrieval process in order to create the embryos – will now be unable to have the material implanted in an attempt to create a pregnancy. Hundreds of other frozen embryos – those that are not viable, or not needed by families that are already complete – can now not be destroyed as is typical IVF practice. They need to be continually stored in freezers, or what the Alabama supreme court refers to, in Orwellian style, as “cryogenic nurseries”, a term you almost have to admire for the sheer audacity of its creepiness.But the concept of embryonic personhood, now inscribed in Alabama law, poses dangers well beyond the cruelty it has imposed on the hopeful couples who were pursuing IVF in Alabama, before their state supreme court made that impossible. If embryos and fetuses are people, as Alabama now says they are, then whole swaths of women’s daily lives come under the purview of state scrutiny.Forget about abortion, which would automatically be banned as murder in any situation where fetuses are considered persons – Alabama already has a total abortion ban, without exceptions for rape, incest or health. Embryonic personhood would also ban many kinds of birth control, such as Plan B, IUDs, and some hormonal birth control pills, which courts have said can be interpreted as working by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. (In fact these methods work primarily by preventing ovulation, but facts are of dwindling relevance in the kind of anti-abortion litigation that comes before Republican-controlled courts.)Further, if embryos and fetuses are children, then the state may have an interest in protecting their lives that extends to controlling even more of women’s daily conduct. Could a woman who is pregnant, or could be pregnant, have a right to do things that might endanger her embryo in a situation where an embryo is her legal equal, with a claim on state protection? Could she risk this embryo’s health and life by, say, eating sushi, or having some soft cheese? Forget about the wine. Could she be charged with child endangerment for speeding? For going on a jog?These scenarios might sound hyperbolic, but they are not entirely hypothetical. Even before the Alabama court began enforcing the vulgar fiction that a frozen embryo is a person, authorities there had long used the notion of fetal personhood to harass, intimidate and jail women – often those suspected of using drugs during pregnancies – under the state’s “chemical endangerment of a child” law, using the theory that women’s bodies are environments that they have an obligation to keep free of “chemicals” that could harm a fetus or infringe upon its rights.Using this logic, police in Alabama, and particularly in rural Etowah county, north-east of Birmingham, have repeatedly jailed women for allegedly using drugs ranging from marijuana to meth while pregnant – including women who have claimed that they did not use drugs, and women who turned out not to be pregnant. In 2021, Kim Blalock, a mother of six, was arrested on felony charges after filling a doctor’s prescription during a pregnancy; the state of Alabama decided that it knew better than her doctor, and they could criminalize her for following medical advice.This is not an extreme example: it is the logical conclusion of fetal personhood’s legalization – the surveillance, jailing and draconian monitoring of pregnant women, an exercise in voyeuristic sadism justified by the flimsy pretext that it’s all being done for the good of children. Except there are no children. Lest this seem like an idea that will necessarily be corrected by political response, or by the ultimate intervention of a federal court on the question, remember that Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs referred repeatedly to “unborn human beings”.There are several ways this supreme court could ban abortion nationwide, and they do not need to enforce fetal personhood to do so – many rightwing organizations, for instance, are encouraging federal courts to revive the long-dormant Comstock Act, from the 1870s, to ban all abortions. Nor will the ultimate national abortion ban necessarily even come from the courts. Any future Republican president will be under enormous pressure to enact a national abortion ban, and they will have many means at their disposal to do so even without congressional cooperation, be it through the justice department or through the FDA. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in all but name, has floated the idea of a 16-week national ban – a huge restriction on women’s right’s nationwide that would undoubtably be just the opening salvo for even further rollbacks. Meanwhile, his nominal rival, Nikki Haley, responded to the news of the Alabama court ruling by voicing approval of fetal personhood. “Embryos, to me, are babies.”Let’s be clear: they are not. An embryo is not a child. Neither is a fetus. Treating them as such is a legal absurdity that degrades human life and insults the reality of parenthood. But most importantly: there is no notion of when personhood begins that is compatible with women’s citizenship other than birth. If personhood begins while a pregnancy is ongoing – if a person, that is, can be someone enclosed entirely inside another person’s body – then the competition of rights will be humiliatingly, violently, brutally one-sided. None of the opportunities, freedoms or responsibilities of citizenship are available to someone whose body is constantly surveilled, commandeered and colonized by the state like that. No citizenship worth its name can belong to someone who cannot even wield within the bounds of her own skin.It is humiliating to even have to say this: that women matter more than fetuses or embryos, that a frozen cell in a petri dish is not a human being, but we are. It is an absurdity to make this argument, an exhausting waste of our time, a degradation. That, too, is part of the point.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Leftist Democrats invoke human rights law in scrutiny of Israel military aid

      by

      Leftwing Democrats in Congress have invoked a landmark law barring assistance to security forces of governments deemed guilty of human rights abuses to challenge the Biden administration’s emergency military aid program for Israel.Members of the Democratic party’s progressive wing say the $14.3bn package pledged by the White House after the 7 October attack by Hamas that killed more than 1,400 Israelis breaches the Leahy Act because Israel’s retaliatory assault on Gaza has overwhelmingly harmed civilians. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed in Gaza so far, among them 3,700 children, according to the Gaza health ministry, run by Hamas.The act, sponsored by the former Democratic senator Patrick Leahy and passed in 1997, prohibits the US defence and state departments from rendering security assistance to foreign governments facing credible accusations of rights abuses. The law was originally designed only to refer to narcotics assistance, but was later expanded, with amendments covering assistance from both state department and Pentagon budgetsSeveral governments, some of them key US allies, are believed to have been denied assistance under the law, including Turkey, Colombia and Mexico.Proponents of applying the act to Israel point to the rising death toll in Gaza from military strikes on the territory, the displacement of more than 1 million people from their homes and a surging humanitarian crisis after Israeli authorities cut water, food, fuel and electricity supplies.“I am very concerned that our taxpayer dollars may be used for violations of human rights,” said the congressman Andre Carson of Indiana in an email to the Guardian, in which he accused Israel of “war crimes”, citing this week’s deadly bombing of the Jabalia refugee camp and the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) alleged use of white phosphorus.“Last year, I voted to provide $3 billion dollars of strategic and security assistance to Israel. But we must absolutely make sure that none of those funds are used inappropriately, in violation of US law like the Leahy Act, or in violation of international law.”But earlier this week, the Biden administration said it was not placing any limits on how Israel uses the weapons provided to it by the US. “That is really up to the Israel Defense Force to use in how they are going to conduct their operations,” a Pentagon spokesperson, Sabrina Singh, said on Monday. “But we’re not putting any constraints on that.”The Israeli government and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have so far not responded to calls for a humanitarian pause and have rejected calls for a ceasefire, as demanded by some progressive Democrats.Joe Biden promised a lavish military aid package to Israel in an Oval Office speech after visiting the country following the Hamas attack. US commandos are currently in Israel helping to locate an estimated 240 hostages, the number given by IDF, including American citizens, seized in the assault, the Pentagon has confirmed.Carson, one of three Muslims in Congress, said he previously raised concerns about possible Leahy Act violations last year after the shooting death of the US-Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank. An Israeli investigation subsequently admitted there was a “high probability” that she had been killed by Israeli gunfire, after initially blaming Palestinians.Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats – a political action committee that helped elect leftwing House members nicknamed “the Squad”, which include some of Congress’s most vocal advocates for Palestinian rights – also invoked the Leahy legislation.“I think the Leahy Act should absolutely be looked into right now, when we are seeing gross violations of human rights,” he said. “[The Israelis] are targeting refugee camps, hospitals, mosques all under the guise of self-defense or that one or other member of Hamas is hiding there. It doesn’t matter whether Hamas is there or not, because you are targeting civilians. No amount of tax dollars should be justified for that.”Like Carson, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most high-profile members of “the Squad”, specifically identified the supposed use of white phosphorus – as claimed by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International – as a transgression that should disqualify Israel from receiving US assistance. The IDF had said it does not use white phosphorus against civilians, but didn’t clarify whether it was used at the time.“Deployment of white phosphorus near populated civilian areas is a war crime,” she said. “The United States must adhere to our own laws and policies, which prohibit US aid from assisting forces engaged in gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.”Congressional calls for scrutiny over US funding for Israel predate the current war in Gaza.Last May, Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, introduced the Defending the Human Rights of Palestinian Children and Families Living Under Israeli Military Occupation bill, designed to prohibit US funds from being used to enforce Israeli occupation policies in the West Bank.“Not $1 of US aid should be used to commit human rights violations, demolish families’ homes, or permanently annex Palestinian lands,” McCollum said at the time. “The United States provides billions in assistance for Israel’s government each year – and those dollars should go toward Israel’s security, not toward actions that violate international law and cause harm.”The bill, which has not passed, was co-sponsored by 16 other House Democrats – including some who have not supported the current calls for a ceasefire – and endorsed by 75 civil society groups, including Amnesty, HRW and J Street.McCollum’s office did not respond to questions over whether she now supported extending her bill to Gaza or using the Leahy Act to block Biden’s emergency fund package.In a speech on the Senate floor this week, the senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont called Israel’s Gaza campaign “morally unacceptable and a violation of international law” but stopped short of opposing Biden’s assistance program.Instead, he demanded a “clear promise” from Israel that displaced Palestinians will be allowed to return to their homes after fighting stops and for the abandonment of efforts to annex the West Bank, a territory claimed by Palestinians as part of a future state.“The United States must make it clear that these are the conditions for our solidarity,” he said.In a letter to the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Sanders and five other Democratic senators – Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Ed Markey, Peter Welch and Mazie Hirono – said they supported approving Biden’s proposed overall $106bn aid package to Israel, Ukraine and other foreign crisis areas “without delay”.But they demanded that an equal sum be allocated to “domestic emergencies”, including childcare, primary health care and the opioid epidemic.A separate letter the six sent to Biden asks a series of searching questions about Israel’s invasion of Gaza.“We have serious concerns about what this invasion and potential occupation of Gaza will mean, both in terms of the long-term security of Israel and the well-being of the Palestinian residents of Gaza,” it says. “Congress needs more information about Israel’s long-term plans and goals, as well as the United States Government’s assessments of those prospects.” More