Human Rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      The Solution to India’s China Problem: A Free Tibet

      by

      India has had a wound around its Himalayan neck ever since it suffered a humiliating defeat to China in 1962. The recent clash between Indian and China soldiers in Galwan Valley on June 15 has only rubbed salt into that wound.

      It has come to this because when China invaded neighboring Tibet in 1950, India was in thrall to the newly-established communist regime under Mao Zedong after a bloody revolution. Ignoring its civilizational relationship with Tibet, India hoped to gain from the emerging power of the People’s Republic of China and thus celebrated “Hindi-Chini bhai bhai,” a popular slogan of the time that translates to “Indians and Chinese are brothers.”

      Han and Hindu Nationalism Come Face to Face

      READ MORE

      After 1962, the Chinese military stood on the doorstep of India across thousands of kilometers in the Himalayas. Proverbially, this border was guarded by only 60 Indian policemen before China’s conquest of Tibet. Pertinently, India never had a border with China before 1950.

      Refuge in India

      If Tibet had remained a free and independent country, today it would have been the 10th largest nation with 2.5 million square kilometers of land. The Tibetan Plateau hosts 46,000 glaciers, nearly one-fourth of the world’s total number. It is a source of numerous rivers, including some of the most mighty ones such as the Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong and Yangtze. It is shocking that such a vast reservoir of water and natural resources in Asia has been occupied by China and it is even more shocking that it barely gets a mention today.

      Ancient Buddhist culture has been preserved in Tibet over many centuries. In the Indian public psyche, Kailash Mansarovar was part of India. Tibetans used to visit Buddhist pilgrimage sites in India at Sarnath, Bodhgaya, Nalanda and Amravati. The India–Tibet border was irrelevant and people used to cross it freely. Today, that border has two armies facing each other and people no longer cross it.

      After the Dalai Lama took refuge in India in 1959, around 100,000 Tibetans have come to India. Most of them live in the Himalayan regions and the state of Karnataka. The Tibetan seat of power is in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, where the Dalai Lama has set up abode. The Tibetan parliament and government are also based there. Although many Tibetans still dream of a free Tibet, India‘s desire for closer ties with China in the past has led New Delhi to shy away from supporting Tibetan independence. As a refugee in India, the Dalai Lama has spoken of autonomy and adhered to India‘s “One-China” policy.

      In 70 years of Chinese occupation, more than 1 million Tibetans have been killed, 6,000 monasteries destroyed and Tibet’s cultural identity attacked. The Chinese have also proceeded to exploit Tibet’s natural resources. They have cleared forests, bombed mountains and practice strip mining for gold, copper, lithium and other rare earth elements.

      Long Ignored

      The international community has ignored the genocide and exploitation Tibet has experienced over the last seven decades. Powerful nations have made their peace with China for geopolitical and economic reasons. In the process, Tibetans have suffered a lot.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Globalization has led over 160 countries trading with China. Western “liberal democrats” blindly accept the “One-China” policy and recognize Tibet as a part of China. Freed of any external pressure, China has become more oppressive in Tibet. Even possessing the Dalai Lama’s photo could land a Tibetan in jail on charges of separatism. Although Tibetan youth do not retaliate like their counterparts in Palestine or Kashmir, they have resorted to self-immolation as a form of protest against Chinese occupation.

      Tibetans still believe that freedom is possible. Until six decades ago, Confucianism and Buddhism were the strongest influences on Chinese society. Communism attacked these twin pillars. Capitalism has shaken them further. Today, the only religion consumerist China worships is money. Yet, as the Chinese are discovering, life is more than money. Tibetans are convinced that China will never be able to conquer their spirit and that they are free until their spirit is free.

      During visits of Chinese leaders, Indian police customarily arrest all Tibetan activists to appease China. Yet young Tibetans take their inspiration from India’s struggle for independence from British rule. Few remember that until 1942, most Indians did not believe they would see freedom in their lifetime. Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement struggled to gain mass support. Within five years, India became independent because the British Empire collapsed under its own weight. Tibetans believe the same will happen to the modern Chinese empire.

      Chinese Domination

      China has not only occupied Tibet but also Uighur East Turkestan, a Muslim-majority region covering 1.8 million square kilometers now known as Xinjiang. It also occupies 1.2 million square kilometers of southern Mongolia and 84,000 square kilometers of Manchuria. By some calculations, 60% of China’s 9.6 million square kilometers is occupied territory. China’s expansionist designs continue. The “Belt and Road Initiative” is China’s plan to dominate world trade.

      The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) controls all aspects of life in the country. The administration, the judiciary, the legislature, the media and the military are all controlled by the CCP. The party fosters a personality cult around Mao despite his responsibility for the death of millions of people. His portrait still adorns Tiananmen Square, a place made immemorable by the brutal slaughter of unarmed students by armed tanks. That 1989 massacre still stands obliterated from history textbooks and even the internet in China.

      Territorial encroachments and China’s support for Pakistan demonstrate that Beijing has no respect for India’s territorial integrity. There is no reason for India to respect China’s territorial integrity. Beijing is facing international isolation because of the COVID-19 outbreak. From Japan to Bhutan, China’s neighbors are nervous about its expansionism. The time has come for India to stand up to China. It must scrap the “One-China” policy and support Tibet’s nonviolent movement for independence.

      *[An earlier version of this article was published by The Indian Express.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      The 2020 US Census Could Threaten Human Rights

      by

      On July 21, President Donald Trump signed an unprecedented memo directing the commerce secretary to collect data on undocumented immigrants and remove them from the final population totals. The memo follows up on a July 2019 executive order that assigned the Census Bureau to determine how many residents are US citizens.

      It remains unclear how this plan — seemingly a workaround the Supreme Court decision that blocked the administration from including a question about citizenship on the census — would be enforced or survive a legal challenge. However, removing undocumented immigrants from the population totals would have the effect of distorting the count, thus diminishing political representation and federal funding for states with larger undocumented populations.

      Global Pandemic Exposes Gender Inequality

      READ MORE

      The decennial census, enshrined in the US Constitution, was conceived to count all residents of the country — regardless of citizenship or eligibility to vote — as a basis for taxation and the regular reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives among the various states. In March 2018, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that for the first time in 70 years, the 2020 census would include a question about citizenship status for all households. After months of court battles, the Supreme Court issued a complicated ruling that kept the question off the census, noting that the administration’s rationale for adding the item was contrived.

      Nonetheless, recent surveys by civil society groups indicate that Latino communities remain fearful of participating in the census: as a result of the controversy, many mistakenly believe that a question about citizenship status will still appear and fear that census data could be shared with law enforcement or other government agencies. Now, the Trump administration seems determined to work around the Supreme Court ruling, noting that it is the “policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

      The ramifications of removing undocumented immigrants from the count loom large as census information is used not just for congressional apportionment, but also for the allocation of an estimated $900 billion in federal funding for programs on issues such as nutrition, public health, housing, transportation, education, law enforcement and environmental protection. International human rights law — including the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) — recognizes the rights to education, health and an adequate standard of living.

      Distorted census results would damage the protection of these fundamental human rights by putting communities with large immigrant populations at risk of limited access to essential services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this seems particularly punishing. Further, an undercount would place certain states at a political disadvantage in terms of proportional representation in Washington, undermining the fundamental democratic principle that voters should have equal power to choose their representatives. Removing undocumented immigrants from the census count would ensure that everyone in the country, both citizens and residents, ultimately suffer.

      The Trump administration has come to be associated with a xenophobic, exclusionary and race-based conception of American identity. Indeed, President Donald Trump has stood apart from all of his recent predecessors in displaying open hostility toward immigrants, asylum seekers and other vulnerable and minority groups. The president has proposed dramatic new restrictions on legal immigration and pledged to abrogate birthright citizenship — the constitutional guarantee that those born in the United States, whether or not their parents are citizens, have a right to citizenship. As a result, this proposal, beyond its harmful practical impact, has been criticized as an effort to enforce that identity.

      The proposal can also be seen as part of a larger pattern in which politicians seek to define American political membership, determine voters’ political identity according to demography and then maximize their chances at the polls through the manipulation of district boundaries or the rules of voting eligibility. In effect, a census that undercounts immigrant populations and distorts reapportionment could amount to an enormous partisan gerrymandering exercise. Like all such efforts, this would undermine the fundamental democratic principle that voters should have equal power to choose their representatives rather than representatives choosing their voters, further eroding the idea that elected officials should serve and appeal to all segments of society. Everyone in the country, both citizens and residents, would ultimately suffer from such an outcome.

      *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Opposing Repressive Regimes in the Middle East Is a Death Sentence

      by

      The ruling by Bahrain’s top judicial body, the court of cassation, on July 13 to uphold the death sentences of Mohammed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa has been decried by human rights organizations, condemned in the UK House of Lords and questioned in the British Parliament. Whether any of that will save the men from execution is debatable.

      The men were convicted and sentenced to death in 2014 for the killing of a policeman. That conviction was overturned when evidence emerged that they had been tortured into giving false confessions. Despite that decision, the death penalty was reinstated and subsequently confirmed by the court of cassation. An official in the public prosecutor’s office defended the court’s latest ruling while denying the accusations of torture, claiming that medical reports showed that the confessions were obtained “in full consciousness and voluntarily, without any physical or verbal coercion.”

      In Bahrain, Justice Is Still a Far-Off Goal

      READ MORE

      That confounds the earlier court decision to throw out the convictions, which was based on an investigation undertaken by the Bahraini government’s own Special Investigation Unit that showed the men had been tortured. However, in the contorted reality of the kingdom’s politicized judicial system, the court of cassation decided that the convictions were not based on evidence extracted under torture but rather on other evidence.

      “Close and Important Relationship”

      Amnesty International denounced the latest verdict, saying: “The two men were taken to the Criminal Investigations Department where they were tortured during interrogation. Mohamed Ramadhan refused to sign a ‘confession’, though he was subjected to beating and electrocution. Hussain Ali Moosa said he was coerced to ‘confess’ and incriminate Mohamed Ramadhan after being suspended by the limbs and beaten for several days.”

      Moosa has said that, after his genitalia were repeatedly beaten, he was told that if he signed a confession implicating Ramadhan his sentence would be commuted to life: “They were kicking me on my reproductive organs, and would hit me repeatedly in the same place until I couldn’t speak from the pain. I decided to tell them what they wanted.” His repudiation of the confession was ignored by the courts.

      In UK Parliament, four days prior to the court of cassation ruling, the Conservative MP Sir Peter Bottomley had asked Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab for a statement on whether he would use what he called “the UK’s constructive dialogue” with Bahrain to publicly raise the cases of the men. In reply, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa James Cleverly spoke of a “close and important relationship” with an “ongoing, open and genuine dialogue” with Bahrain. The minister averred that “this dynamic” enabled the UK to raise human rights concerns, adding “the cases of Mr Moosa and Mr Ramadhan had been, and would continue to be, raised in conversations with officials in Bahrain.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      Earlier this month, it was revealed that another heavily politicized judiciary, this time in Iran, had upheld the death sentences of three young Iranian protesters who had been arrested in November of last year during countrywide protests that saw hundreds killed by security forces. Though moving swiftly to convict the men and sentence them to death, the authorities have done virtually nothing about investigating the killings carried out by the state in suppressing the protests. Amongst media highlighting their case is the Saudi news site Al Arabiya. It noted that a hashtag trending in Iran, “#do not execute,” has had over 2 million tweets. On July 19, Iran halted the executions, according to one of the lawyers for the accused.

      In 2019, Saudi Arabia executed a record 184 people, including six women, many for drug-related offenses. Some were crucified after being beheaded. At least one was a minor. In April, the kingdom announced it would no longer execute juveniles; rather it would sentence them to a maximum of 10 years in a juvenile detention center. It is unclear if the decree will save the life of Ali al-Nimr, who was 17 when arrested and 19 when sentenced to death. His uncle Nimr al-Nimr, a prominent Shia Muslim cleric and critic of the ruling family, was beheaded in 2016.

      State-Sanctioned Arbitrary Killing

      In Egypt, more than 2,000 people have been sentenced to death since Abdel Fattah el-Sisi came to power in 2013, with nearly 200 executed. At least 10 children have been sentenced to hang. In the country’s prison system, there is another kind of death — by deliberate medical neglect, as was the case with the country’s first democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi. He was repeatedly denied medication for his diabetes and collapsed and died in a Cairo court on June 17, 2019.

      On November 8 last year, a panel of UN experts led by Agnes Callamard, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, concluded that Morsi’s death “after enduring those conditions could amount to a State-sanctioned arbitrary killing”. The case shed light on the horrific conditions in Egypt’s overcrowded and brutal prison system, a situation that has been severely exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

      On July 13, prominent Egyptian journalist Mohamed Monir died from COVID-19. He had been arrested and held in pre-trial detention for criticizing, on the Al Jazeera news network, the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis. The charge against him was broadcasting false news. The 65-year-old suffered from heart disease and diabetes, and was therefore at high risk of contracting the disease. After falling ill Monir was released to hospital a week before he died. An influential critical voice was silenced. Surely that was the intention — death, be it by medical malfeasance or by execution, is a powerful weapon in the hands of authoritarian regimes.

      *[This article was originally published by Arab Digest.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in World Politics

      COVID-19: Balancing Health Emergencies and Human Rights

      by

      The COVID-19 pandemic has led to governments around the world imposing state emergencies under the pretext of protecting public health. Such measures, which have included both partial and full lockdowns to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease, have had an impact on fundamental freedoms. These rights, which are highlighted under international human rights law (IHRL), include access to health care, non-discrimination, privacy, free speech, freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.

      The Price of America’s Complacency in the Face of COVID-19 Is Survival

      READ MORE

      On April 30, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) categorically stated that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — the human rights treaty of the UN — governments are not allowed to deviate from their human rights obligations and commitments while combating a global pandemic. This statement was released after a majority of officials served notices to the UNHRC about the declaration of state emergencies and the restrictive measures that undermined their human rights obligations under the ICCPR. Nonetheless, all restrictive measures enforced to combat the pandemic must meet the IHRL framework and comply with the purposes and principles of the UN agency.

      Moreover, the UNHRC asserted in its statement that many other countries had imposed similar restrictive measures without formally notifying the UN body about the derogation of certain human rights. The UNHRC advised states against neglecting their obligations under international human rights law by resorting to excessive emergency actions.

      COVID-19 Pandemic and Human Rights

      There are several non-negotiable human rights principles enshrined in the IHRL framework. These include the right to life; no torture and slavery; a fair trial before a court of law; no imprisonment for breaches of contractual obligations; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the right to recognition as a person. Consequently, Article 4(1) of the ICCPR states:

      “In [a] time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

      This does not mean that other human rights obligations can be shelved during a public health emergency against the principle of legal proportionality of restrictive measures. But there is a set of laws that consist of both procedural and substantive legal requirements. States have to meet these guidelines while combating the COVID-19 disease without eschewing their human rights obligations under the IHRL framework.

      On the other hand, UN Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet has underscored that balancing “the economic imperatives with the health and human rights imperatives during the COVID-19 pandemic is going to be one of the most delicate, daunting and defining experiences for all leaders and all governments. Their place in history will be decided by how well or how badly they perform over the coming months.”

      Pre-Derogation Measures by States

      As a general rule during health emergencies, states must announce the human rights provisions from which they have decided to relax and inform other nations through the UN secretary-general about their intentions. However, if states decide to extend the duration or geographical coverage where the derogation of rights takes place, they must issue additional notifications.

      Similarly, there is a need for immediately notifying officials in case of the termination of derogation. Pragmatically speaking, emergency measures can only restrict other human rights according to the “extent strictly required under the exigencies of the situation.” This must be as outlined in the General Comment No. 29 under Article 4 of the ICCPR.

      These steps consider the duration, location and scope of measures imposed during a state of emergency. However, countries must ensure that enforced measures are necessary, legitimate, non-discriminatory and proportionate to the emergency situation. These steps were incorporated in the Guidance on Emergency Measures and COVID-19 issued by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on April 27.

      Derogation Under Regional Human Rights Frameworks

      Guidelines for regional human rights protection (RHRP) are complementary pillars of the IHRL framework to protect and promote human rights. Similar derogation provisions are incorporated in the RHRP framework. For example, Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is based on the draft Article 4 of the UN Draft Covenant on Human Rights, which later became Article 4 of the ICCPR and Article 27 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).

      But the protocol of derogation cannot be used if a state is simply unable to guarantee the fulfillment of human rights under the ECHR, the ACHR and the RHRP. In other words, a country cannot hide behind the option of relaxing human rights policies under exceptional circumstances if it is unable to even uphold them during normal times. On the contrary, a state is obliged to announce the measures taken that might involve the relaxation of its requirements under the RHRP.

      Yet in March and April, several European countries notified the secretary-general of the Council of Europe about their plan to derogate from their human rights obligations as per the ECHR. Despite this, they had to resort to emergency powers within the IHRL framework while responding to a health emergency like COVID-19. In addition, emergency powers must be temporary, with a vision of restoring normalcy at the earliest.

      Second Wave?

      It is evident that there is no clarity about the number of governments complying with the requirements of the derogation protocol under the ICCPR while dealing with the pandemic. There is every chance that the novel coronavirus will soon result in a second wave and once again derail life as we know it. This would lead to repeated lockdowns, and human rights would be part of the conversation.

      It is clear that states have to be on their toes to fulfill their IHRL obligations. During this crisis, governments must avoid instances of sidestepping their human rights requirements. Such violations must be probed and the culprits brought to justice.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      China Continues Its Persecution of Uighur Muslims

      by

      The coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the shortcomings of the capitalist and institutionally racist systems that govern our world, but its precedence in the media has drawn attention away from human rights abuses that continue to take place. Worse still, the global lockdowns caused by the public health crisis have been relentlessly exploited by various […] More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      China says it will 'resolutely hit back' at US over sanctions law on Uighur abuses

      by

      Washington legislation allows US to freeze assets of Chinese officials it deems responsible for arbitrary detentions in Xinjiang region Uighur security personnel patrol near the Id Kah Mosque in Kashgar in western China’s Xinjiang region. China has threatened to retaliate against the US’s new Uighur human rights law. Photograph: Ng Han Guan/AP Beijing has criticised […] More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Sweden Leads the Way on Uighur Rights

      by

      Article 1 of the UN Refugee Convention defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” In 2019, the Swedish Migration Agency recognized that […] More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Refugees Build Bridges Across Society

      by

      While celebrating the contribution of refugees, we must acknowledge the importance of all who are driven from their homelands not only by fear and terror, but also by desperate need. Human bridges and personal connections have been built by great movements across the globe as people escape war and persecution, hunger both for food and […] More