View previous stories
	Public opposition to killer robots grows while states continue to drag their feet by Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, ICRC, agencies   25 Mar. 2019   Autonomous weapons that kill must be banned, insists UN chief. (UN News)   UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called on artificial intelligence (AI) experts meeting in Geneva on Monday to push ahead with their work to restrict the development of lethal autonomous weapons systems, or LAWS, as they are also known.   In a message to the Group of Governmental Experts, the UN chief said that 'machines with the power and discretion to take lives without human involvement are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law'.   No country or armed force is in favour of such 'fully autonomous' weapon systems that can take human life, Mr Guterres insisted, before welcoming the panel's statement last year that 'human responsibility for decisions on the use of weapons systems must be retained, since accountability cannot be transferred to machines'.   Although this 2018 announcement was an 'important line in the sand' by the Group of Governmental Experts - which meets under the auspices of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) - the UN chief noted in his statement that while some Member States believe new legislation is required, while others would prefer less stringent political measures and guidelines that could be agreed on.   Nonetheless, it is time for the panel 'to deliver' on LAWS, the UN chief said, adding that 'it is your task now to narrow these differences and find the most effective way forward. The world is watching, the clock is ticking and others are less sanguine. I hope you prove them wrong'.   The LAWS meeting is one of two planned for this year, which follow earlier Governmental Expert meetings in 2017 and 2018 at the UN in Geneva.   The Group's agenda covers technical issues related to the use of lethal autonomous weapons systems, including the challenges the technology poses to international humanitarian law, as well as human interaction in the development, deployment and use of emerging tech in LAWS.   In addition to the Governmental Experts, participation is expected from a wide array of international organizations, civil society, academia, and industry.   The CCW's full name is the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, entered into force on 2 December 1983.   The Convention currently has 125 States Parties. Its purpose is to prohibit or restrict the use of specific types of weapons that are considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to affect civilians indiscriminately.   In previous comments on AI, the Secretary-General likened the technology to 'a new frontier with advances moving at warp speed'.   'Artificial Intelligence has the potential to accelerate progress towards a dignified life, in peace and prosperity, for all people', he said at the AI for Good Global Summit in 2017, adding that there are also serious challenges and ethical issues which must be taken into account including cybersecurity, human rights and privacy. http://bit.ly/2TxM5RB   24 Mar. 2019   Resistance to killer robots growing. (DW)   Activists from 35 countries met in Berlin this week to call for a ban on lethal autonomous weapons, ahead of new talks on such weapons in Geneva. They say that if Germany took the lead, other countries would follow.   "I can build you a killer robot in just two weeks," says Noel Sharkey as he leans forward with a warning gaze. The white-haired English professor is a renowned specialist for robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). He was in Berlin to participate in an international meeting of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots that ended on Friday.   Sharkey objects to talking about "lethal autonomous weapons systems" (LAWs) as if they were something out a science-fiction novel. Fully autonomous weapons systems are in fact a well-established reality, he says, adding that there is no need to argue about the definition thereof: These are weapons that seek, select and attack targets on their own.   That is also how the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) defines them. Soldiers no longer push the firing button with such weapons; instead, the weapons themselves use built-in software to find and strike targets. Such weapons can come in the form of missiles, unmanned ground vehicles, submarines, or swarms of mini-drones.   The reality of fully automated autonomous weapons systems was on full display this February at IDEX in Abu Dhabi, the largest arms fair in the Middle East, where German arms manufacturers also enthusiastically hawked their new weapons with autonomous functions.   Violation of international law   The ICRC says that the use of such weapons is a clear breach of international law. "We all know that a machine is incapable of making moral decisions," emphasizes Sharkey, one of the leading figures in the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.   He notes that a machine cannot differentiate between combatants and civilians as stipulated by international law, referring to failed attempts at facial recognition in which innocent civilians were identified as supposed criminals.   Facial recognition depends on artificial intelligence (AI) to autonomously find a person of interest. Once the machine has identified that person, it can attack on its own. A growing number of critics are horrified by such a scenario.   Meanwhile, some 100 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have joined the global Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. At their Berlin meeting, those groups called on Germany to demand that autonomous weapons systems that violate international law be banned. The current German government affirmed such intentions in its coalition negotiations in 2018. Nevertheless, it has meekly pushed only for non-binding political declarations at the UN in Geneva.   UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the European Parliament are also in favor of a ban. Recently, the German Informatics Society (GI), an organization of computer researchers, as well as the influential Federal Association of German Industry (BDI), also called for a legally binding ban on LAWs.   Although countries such as the USA and China are leading the world in AI use, much of the research that such systems depend on comes from Europe. That lends great weight to European voices in the ongoing debate.   Noel Sharkey is convinced: "If Germany takes the lead, others will follow." Sharkey also warns that non-binding political declarations, like those the German government is currently championing, provide "perfect cover" for countries opposed to a ban. Such countries include Russia, Israel and the USA.   The German government has argued that it is essentially in favor of a ban, but that it has pushed the notably weaker political declaration for tactical reasons. The logic behind that approach is that it allows Germany to maintain a dialogue with countries such as the USA, rather than alienating them altogether.   Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams is wholly unconvinced by that argument, called on German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to reconsider his position. Williams argued that anyone waiting for the USA to come out in favor of a ban will be waiting forever.   International talks on how to regulate LAWs will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, from March 25 to March 29.   Jan. 2019   Public opposition to killer robots grows while states continue to drag their feet.   More than three in five people across 26 countries oppose the development of autonomous weapons that could select and kill targets without human intervention, according to a new poll commissioned by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.   The poll, which was carried out by Ipsos MORI, found that:   In the 26 countries surveyed in 2018, more than three in every five people (61%) oppose the development of lethal autonomous weapons systems.   Two-thirds (66%) of those opposed to lethal autonomous weapons systems were most concerned that they would 'cross a moral line because machines should not be allowed to kill'.   More than half (54%) of those who opposed said they were concerned that the weapons would be 'unaccountable'.   A near-identical survey in 23 countries in January 2017 found that 56% of respondents were opposed to lethal autonomous weapons systems. More than half of respondents opposed killer robots in China (60%); Russia (59%); the UK (54%); France (59%), and the USA (52%).   The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is a growing global coalition of NGOs, including Amnesty International, that is working to ban fully autonomous weapons.   'This poll shows that the states blocking a ban on killer robots are totally out of step with public opinion. Governments should be protecting people from the myriad risks that killer robots pose, not rushing into a new arms race which could have terrifying consequences', said Rasha Abdul Rahim, Acting Deputy Director of Amnesty Tech.   'We still have time to halt the development and proliferation of fully autonomous weapons, but we won't have that luxury for long. Governments should take note of this poll and urgently begin negotiating a new treaty to prohibit these horrifying weapons. Only this can help ensure respect for international law and address ethical and security concerns regarding delegating the power to make life-and-death decisions to machines'.   Amnesty International is calling for a total ban on the development, production and use of fully autonomous weapon systems, in light of the serious human rights, humanitarian and security risks they pose. The use of autonomous weapons without meaningful and effective human control would undermine the right to life and other human rights and create an accountability gap if, once deployed, they are able to make their own determinations about the use of lethal force.   However, a minority of states at the 2018 November annual meeting of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, used consensus rules to thwart meaningful diplomatic progress. Russia, Israel, South Korea, and the USA indicated at the meeting that they would not support negotiations for a new treaty, but the poll results show that more than half of respondents in Russia (59%) and the USA (52%) oppose autonomous weapons.   More than half of respondents opposed autonomous weapons in China (60%), South Korea (74%) and the UK (54%), which are among the leading states developing this technology.   Nov. 2018   Autonomous weapons: States must agree on what human control means in practice. (ICRC)   Should a weapon system be able to make its own 'decision' about who to kill?   The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) believes that the answer is no, and today is calling on States to agree to strong, practical and future-proof limits on autonomy in weapon systems.   During the annual meeting of the States party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva November 21-23, the ICRC will urge that the new mandate of the Group of Governmental Experts focuses on determining the type and degree of human control that would be necessary to comply with international humanitarian law and satisfy ethical concerns. Several questions need to be answered:   What is the level of human supervision, including the ability to intervene and deactivate, that would be required during the operation of a weapon that can autonomously select and attack targets? What is the level of predictability and reliability that would be required, also taking into account the weapon's tasks and the environment of use?   What other operational constraints would be required, notably on the weapon system's tasks, its targets, the environment in which it operates (e.g. populated or unpopulated area), the duration of its operation, and the scope of its movement?   "It is now widely accepted that human control must be maintained over weapon systems and the use of force, which means we need limits on autonomy," said ICRC President Peter Maurer. "Now is the moment for States to determine the level of human control that is needed to satisfy ethical and legal considerations."   Only humans can make context-specific judgements of distinction, proportionality and precautions in combat. Only humans can behave ethically, uphold moral responsibility and show mercy and compassion. Machines cannot exercise the complex and uniquely human judgements required on battlefields in order to comply with international humanitarian law. As inanimate objects, they will never be capable of embodying human conscience or ethical values.   Given militaries significant interest in increasingly autonomous weapons, there is a growing risk that humans will become so far removed from the choice to use force that life-and-death decision-making will effectively be left to sensors and software.   'Humans cannot delegate the decision to use force and violence to machines. Decisions to kill, injure and destroy must remain with humans. It is humans who apply the law and are obliged to respect it', said Kathleen Lawand, the head of the ICRC's arms unit.   http://www.icrc.org/en/document/autonomous-weapons-states-must-agree-what-human-control-means-practice   Aug. 2018   Basic humanity and the public conscience support a ban on fully autonomous weapons, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Countries participating in an upcoming international meeting on such 'killer robots' should agree to negotiate a prohibition on the weapons systems development, production, and use.   The 46-page report, Heed the Call: A Moral and Legal Imperative to Ban Killer Robots, finds that fully autonomous weapons would violate what is known as the Martens Clause. This long-standing provision of international humanitarian law requires emerging technologies to be judged by the 'principles of humanity' and the 'dictates of public conscience' when they are not already covered by other treaty provisions.   'Permitting the development and use of killer robots would undermine established moral and legal standards', said Bonnie Docherty, senior arms researcher at Human Rights Watch, which coordinates the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. 'Countries should work together to preemptively ban these weapons systems before they proliferate around the world'.   The 1995 preemptive ban on blinding lasers, which was motivated in large part by concerns under the Martens Clause, provides precedent for prohibiting fully autonomous weapons as they come closer to becoming reality.   The report was co-published with the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic, for which Docherty is associate director of armed conflict and civilian protection.   More than 70 governments will convene at the United Nations in Geneva from August 27 to 31, 2018, for their sixth meeting since 2014 on the challenges raised by fully autonomous weapons, also called lethal autonomous weapons systems. The talks under the Convention on Conventional Weapons, a major disarmament treaty, were formalized in 2017, but they are not yet directed toward a specific goal.   Human Rights Watch and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots urge states party to the convention to agree to begin negotiations in 2019 for a new treaty that would require meaningful human control over weapons systems and the use of force. Fully autonomous weapons would select and engage targets without meaningful human control.   To date, 26 countries have explicitly supported a prohibition on fully autonomous weapons. Thousands of scientists and artificial intelligence experts, more than 20 Nobel Peace Laureates, and more than 160 religious leaders and organizations of various denominations have also demanded a ban. In June, Google released a set of ethical principles that includes a pledge not to develop artificial intelligence for use in weapons.   At the Convention on Conventional Weapons meetings, almost all countries have called for retaining some form of human control over the use of force. The emerging consensus for preserving meaningful human control, which is effectively equivalent to a ban on weapons that lack such control, reflects the widespread opposition to fully autonomous weapons.   Human Rights Watch and the Harvard clinic assessed fully autonomous weapons under the core elements of the Martens Clause. The clause, which appears in the Geneva Conventions and is referenced by several disarmament treaties, is triggered by the absence of specific international treaty provisions on a topic. It sets a moral baseline for judging emerging weapons.   The groups found that fully autonomous weapons would undermine the principles of humanity, because they would be unable to apply either compassion or nuanced legal and ethical judgment to decisions to use lethal force. Without these human qualities, the weapons would face significant obstacles in ensuring the humane treatment of others and showing respect for human life and dignity.   Fully autonomous weapons would also run contrary to the dictates of public conscience. Governments, experts, and the broader public have widely condemned the loss of human control over the use of force.   Partial measures, such as regulations or political declarations short of a legally binding prohibition, would fail to eliminate the many dangers posed by fully autonomous weapons. In addition to violating the Martens Clause, the weapons raise other legal, accountability, security, and technological concerns.   In previous publications, Human Rights Watch and the Harvard clinic have elaborated on the challenges that fully autonomous weapons would present for compliance with international humanitarian law and international human rights law, analyzed the gap in accountability for the unlawful harm caused by such weapons, and responded to critics of a preemptive ban.   The 26 countries that have called for the ban are: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China (use only), Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, the Holy See, Iraq, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, the State of Palestine, Uganda, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.   The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, which began in 2013, is a coalition of 75 nongovernmental organizations in 32 countries that is working to preemptively ban the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons. Docherty will present the report at a Campaign to Stop Killer Robots briefing for CCW delegates scheduled on August 28 at the United Nations in Geneva.   'The groundswell of opposition among scientists, faith leaders, tech companies, nongovernmental groups, and ordinary citizens shows that the public understands that killer robots cross a moral threshold', Docherty said. 'Their concerns, shared by many governments, deserve an immediate response'.   Apr. 2018   April 2018 marks five years since the launch of Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. It is also the fifth time since 2014 that governments are convening at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva to discuss concerns over lethal autonomous weapons systems, also known as fully autonomous weapons or 'killer robots'.   The campaign urges states to participate in the CCW Group of Governmental Experts meeting, which opens at the United Nations (UN) on Monday, 9 April, and to commit to retain meaningful human control of weapons systems and over individual attacks.   Why the concern about killer robots?   Armed drones and other autonomous weapons systems with decreasing levels of human control are currently in use and development by high-tech militaries including the US, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia, and the UK. The concern is that a variety of available sensors and advances in artificial intelligence are making it increasingly practical to design weapons systems that would target and attack without any meaningful human control.   If the trend towards autonomy continues, humans may start to fade out of the decision-making loop for certain military actions, perhaps retaining only a limited oversight role, or simply setting broad mission parameters.   Several states, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, artificial intelligence experts, faith leaders, and Nobel Peace Laureates, among others, fundamentally object to permitting machines to determine who or what to target on the battlefield or in policing, border control, and other circumstances. Such a far-reaching development raises an array of profound ethical, human rights, legal, operational, proliferation, technical, and other concerns.   While the capabilities of future technology are uncertain, there are strong reasons to believe that devolving more decision making over targeting to weapons systems themselves will erode the fundamental obligation that rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law be applied by people, and with sufficient specificity to make them meaningful.   Furthermore, with an erosion of human responsibility to apply legal rules at an appropriate level of detail there will likely come an erosion of human accountability for the specific outcomes of such attacks. Taken together, such developments would produce a stark dehumanization of military or policing processes.   What is a 'killer robot'?   A weapons system that identifies, selects and employs force against targets without meaningful human control should be considered a lethal autonomous weapons system. It would have no human in the decision-making loop when the system selects and engages the target of an attack. Applying human control only as a function of design and in an initial deployment stage would fail to fulfill the IHL obligations that apply to commanders in relation to each 'attack'.   Why the need for 'human control'?   Sufficient human control over the use of weapons, and of their effects, is essential to ensuring that the use of a weapon is morally justifiable and can be legal. Such control is also required as a basis for accountability over the consequences of the use of force. To demonstrate that such control can be exercised, states must show that they understand the process by which specific systems identify individual target objects and understand the context, in space and time, where the application of force may take place.   Given the development of greater autonomy in weapon systems, states should make it explicit that meaningful human control is required over individual attacks and that weapon systems that operate without meaningful human control should be prohibited. For human control to be meaningful, the technology must be predictable, the user must have relevant information, and there must be the potential for timely human judgement and intervention.   States should come prepared to the CCW meeting provide their views on the key 'touchpoints' of human/machine interaction in weapons systems. These include design aspects, such as how certain features may be encoded as target objects; how the area or boundary of operation may be fixed; the time period over which a system may operate; and, any possibility of human intervention to terminate the operation and recall the weapon system.   Based on these touchpoints, states should be prepared to explain how control is applied over existing weapons systems, especially those with certain autonomous or automatic functions.   What does the Human Rights Council say about killer robots?   The first multilateral debate on killer robots took place at the Human Rights Council in May 2013, but states have not considered this topic at the Council since then. Countries such as Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Sierra Leone, and South Africa affirm the relevance of human rights considerations and the Council in the international debate over fully autonomous weapons.   In February 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association issued a report recommending that 'autonomous weapons systems that require no meaningful human control should be prohibited'.   http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2018/03/fiveyears/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/21/killer-robots-fail-key-moral-legal-test http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2018/08/unsg/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/01/public-opposition-to-killer-robots-grows-while-states-continue-to-drag-their-feet/ http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2019/01/global-poll-61-oppose-killer-robots/ http://www.politico.eu/article/killer-robots-overran-united-nations-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems/ http://www.dw.com/en/resistance-to-killer-robots-growing/a-48040866 Visit the related web page
	What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean in today's fractured world by The Elders, World Organisation Against Torture South Africa   What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean in today's fractured world, asks Graca Machel, Deputy Chair of The Elders.   'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights'.   These simple but powerful words are the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations at an extraordinary meeting in Paris 70 years ago this week.   But, do they mean anything today for a child in Yemen whose school has been bombed, or a rape survivor in South Sudan, or dissidents from Russia or Saudi Arabia living in fear of abduction and assassination?   And what do they offer for the next generation of leaders, who see many people currently in power in their countries downgrading or demeaning the importance of human rights as national and international politics are increasingly driven by polarisation and populism?   I believe the 70th anniversary of the declaration is a critical moment to reaffirm its values and guarantee its continued relevance.   This means engaging global citizens, listening to the victims of human rights abuses and advocating policies that protect their rights by holding leaders to account.   Let us be blunt: talk is cheap. Although fine words will be spoken this week to mark the declaration's anniversary, millions of innocent civilians face devastating famine in Yemen because of the ongoing blockade of that country's ports and land borders by the Saudi Arabian-led coalition.   The UN has warned that half of Yemen's population - 14-million people out of 28-million - is at risk of famine, while the charity Save The Children estimates that some 85 000 children under the age of five have died from acute malnutrition brought on by the war since 2015.   This constitutes an appalling violation of their collective human rights, and is further disturbing evidence of the use of famine as a weapon of war as already witnessed in Syria and South Sudan.   The permanent members of the UN security council must act with urgency and good faith on all these conflicts if their pious declarations are not to ring hollow.   For Yemen, this must involve the United States, the United Kingdom and France putting real pressure on their regional allies driving the conflict, including the suspension of arms sales, and showing full support for the UN-led peace efforts that offer the only way to a durable and just resolution.   Yemen is just one grotesque example of continued human rights abuses. From Palestine to the Central African Republic, Eritrea to Myanmar and Venezuela to Syria, countless women, men and children have their rights denied and are subject to arbitrary detention, torture, sexual assault and murder.   Tyrants and dictators are further emboldened when democratic leaders abjure their responsibilities to uphold human rights and international law in favour of either cynical isolationism or cowardly short-termism.   The endemic lack of trust in public institutions we have observed in the decade since the global financial crisis means there is a very real threat of human rights being overturned, because those who supposedly speak for the people see them as an impediment to their grip on power and personal enrichment.   Understanding the historical context behind the declaration's genesis in 1948, in all its complexity, is essential to preserving its legacy and guaranteeing its endurance.   It was born out of the devastation of World War II, the atrocity of the Holocaust and the determination - as seen in the contemporaneous Nuremburg Trials - to create new instruments to deliver justice and protect rights and freedoms.   Above all the declaration is a global text, informed by the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man as well as the African notion of ubuntu, eloquently explained by Archbishop Desmond Tutu as meaning 'my humanity is inextricably bound up in yours'.   But, the declaration's power has always depended on the political will of leaders to uphold it, and not just pay hypocritical lip service to its noble aspirations.   The past seven decades offer countless depressing examples of the latter.   In the same year the declaration was signed, South Africa started the process of codifying their brutal apartheid regime; Palestinians were dispossessed en masse in the nakba linked to the founding of the State of Israel; and Britain and France were engaged in military conflicts around the globe to try to preserve their colonial empires.   To paraphrase George Orwell, many of the leaders who signed the declaration in 1948 clearly felt that all humans rights are equal, but some are more equal than others.   Human rights for the victims of colonialism, racism and other forms of discrimination, from sexism and homophobia to structural impoverishment and class prejudice, have only ever been won by the struggle of brave activists at the grassroots.   This was the path taken by Nelson Mandela, who fought all his life to secure freedom and justice in South Africa.   Twenty years ago, he addressed the UN general assembly to mark the 50th anniversary of the declaration. While hailing the power of its words, he challenged his fellow world leaders that the 'failure to achieve this vision results from the acts of commission and omission, particularly by those who occupy positions of leadership in politics and the economy and in other spheres of human activity'.   His words still ring true down the years, and should inspire all of us to hold our leaders to account, and to take responsibility for our own actions as global citizens.   I remain convinced that together, we can deliver the freedom at the heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both today and for future generations.   * Graca Machel is an international advocate for women's and children's rights. She co-founded The Elders with her husband, Nelson Mandela. http://bit.ly/2Ay18DZ   Sparks of Hope, by Graca Machel   Today, millions of people who feel left behind by the forces of globalisation, are easy prey to the siren songs of isolationism, xenophobia and racism.   Trust in the institutions of government, business and the multilateral system is at an all-time low, making it easy for the cynical peddlers of populism to win votes by offering false promises and seemingly simple solutions.   Many politicians and citizens alike either lack the courage to challenge these purveyors of prejudice or find solace in scapegoating and join the chorus of cheap bigotry.   Yet we abdicate our own responsibilities and abandon the most vulnerable in society if we succumb to fatalism and despair. History teaches us that change is always possible, even when things appear most bleak, when courageous women and men stand together, speak out and take action to change the status quo.   Madiba fought the evils of apartheid, along with his comrades both at home and in exile. They worked across gender, color, age and philosophical lines. From the likes of Albertina Sisulu and Ruth First, to Steve Biko and Hugh Masekela, to the schoolchildren of Soweto and the martyrs of Sharpeville in their spheres of influence, all types of change agents played a critical role in overthrowing their racist regime.   Together, they overcame oppression and contributed to building a new democracy that allowed all South Africans, irrespective of political or racial affiliation, to become a part of this hopeful ideal; a rainbow nation.   Millions of people are alive today who were not even born when Mandela walked out of prison a free man. What is remarkable, and what gives me hope for the future, is how his life and legacy continue to inspire these younger generations.   The world has changed immeasurably in the three decades since Madiba was released. It has even changed immeasurably in the five years since his passing in 2013. Perhaps now more than ever, we need to take guidance from his moral compass to be reminded of the importance of respecting human dignity and defending equal rights for everyone--regardless of race, creed, national origin or sexual orientation.   We cannot tolerate a world where mothers and infants are separated by armed men in uniform, where assassinations and poisonings against civilians are considered an acceptable instrument of state power, or where desperate refugees and migrants are left helpless and vulnerable.   Throughout his life, Nelson Mandela believed in the power of positive change. So, it behoves us now, as we celebrate his centenary, to consider what we can do - both as individuals and collectively - to keep fighting for the freedoms he held so dearly.   It scarcely needs restating how urgent it is to keep up the fight. The politics of nationalism, from 'America First' and Brexit to ethnic sectarianism, whether in India, Myanmar, Cameroon or Crimea, or to allow conflicts to ravage communities for years and create unspeakable suffering in places like Palestine or Syria, loosens the ties that bind us together in our common humanity.   The pursuit of protectionist agendas and the politics of intolerance also draw attention away from humanitarian crises which urgently need attention and which, if left unattended, will come back to haunt those who think they can hide behind walls and raise the drawbridge.   Fortunately, there are countless people around the world who are not prepared to meekly abandon the hard-won gains of the past century, from gender equality to the right to health, education, access to justice and peace.   For the last year, The Elders, a group of independent global leaders have been working to support courageous civil society groups who uphold the values of peace, justice and equality. These 'Sparks of Hope', as we call these civil society groups, are 100 grassroots organisations from all corners of the globe and are comprised of peacemakers, human rights defenders, justice advocates, feminist campaigners and community health workers.   Over 67 million people around the world have joined us on social media to amplify the voices and reach of these 'Sparks of Hope' and accelerate social change in their communities.   * Read their stories in this 100 page special booklet: http://bit.ly/2H0hNFW   Dec. 2018   Human Rights Day: A call to action - No implementation of human rights in the Universal Human Rights Declaration without human rights defenders. (World Organisation Against Torture)   This 10th December marks a double important Anniversary, as we celebrate the 20 years since the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and the 70th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   On this Day, the OMCT, the largest alliance of human rights defenders fighting against torture, and a leading human rights defenders protection organisation, invites all of us to not lower our guard and renews its commitment to human dignity and human rights.   The OMCT with a coalition of human rights organization calls for states to turn statements into action and to endorse and implement the Action Plan that was adopted by participants of the Human Rights Defenders World Summit 2018, held in Paris on 29, 30, 31 October 2018.   At the heart of the action plan is the recognition of human rights defenders across the world for their communities, for social justice and many other causes including the fundamental fight against torture. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, landmark and inspirational document adopted 70 years, is as valid as ever, but without human rights defenders it would risk being deprived of meaning and means.   Over these 20 years, we have seen a significant growth of international mechanisms as well as the adoption of national human rights defenders policies in some countries.   However, these past years also witnessed a very dramatic backsliding in the actual protection of defenders. There are an ever-growing number of threats, attacks, killings, detentions and defamation campaigns across all regions of the world. States, increasingly also in Europe and North America, are passive when it comes to concrete protection for defenders, and continue to engage in acts or omissions which encroach on the dignity and personal integrity of human rights defenders.   This Human Rights Day reminds us that the struggle for human rights matters, maybe more than ever, and it needs more and more support to succeed. The adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders 20 years ago was a promise of recognition and protection. It still remains an unfulfilled promise.   'In this Anniversary, to pay a tribute to all these achievements and to the work of Human Rights Defenders (HRD) we urge states to recommit to human rights and to the protection of human rights defenders', stressed Hina Jilani, OMCT President and first UN Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders.   This day is a call to all of us to continue our work to protect and support defenders, to reaffirm that States must fulfil their obligations under international human rights law and guarantee the right to freedom of action for human rights defenders to accomplish their work everywhere.   We often neglect that the human rights movement is more global, more diverse and more vibrant than it has ever been. We need to pay tribute to human rights defenders worldwide and what they are achieving every day: a better world with less discrimination, marginalization, torture, disappearances, less arbitrariness and more social justice, and ultimately less conflict and more peace, security and development.   This is what some members of OMCT Executive Council and fellow human rights defenders say on this special Anniversary:   'We started to forget what our grandfathers were fighting for and the idea of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. I think it is still time to remember and to act' - Olga Sadosvkaya, Russia.   "20 years after the adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, this Anniversary reminds today the crucial role they play worldwide, at a time when the space for civil society organizations and defenders continues to shrink through various legislative manoeuvres and various forms of repression, especially in the Arab world.   Those men and women, in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia, or in Egypt, are threatened, sentenced, sometimes even forced into exile, for defending tirelessly rights and freedoms, particularly in the context of the fight against terrorism or under the pretext of it " - Mokhtar Trifi, Vice-President of the OMCT, Tunisia.   'Thousands of women and men, at the risk of their lives, mobilize in a network for a common ideal: respect for human rights. Today, it is even more important than ever to celebrate this tireless work of dedicated advocates so that the oppressed do not feel lonely'. - Aminata Dieye, Senegal.   'Human rights defenders sustain peace and democracy all over the world regardless of reprisals and stigmatisation they face. The work of our forefathers and foremothers sustain our dream for a world where human rights are a reality, not an aspiration.   As we celebrate achievements of the past 20 years, we can only hope that Generations to come will be able to continue the struggle for freedom, democracy, difference, diversity, development, respect for the Mother Nature and above all peace in a safer environment'. - Claudia Samayoa, Guatemala.   'We are in a world today where some States, democracies or not, favouring cronyism, have absorbed democracies and civic spaces with their abuse of power and authority. On this 20th anniversary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, unfortunately we have moved several steps backwards when it comes to freedoms of expression, assembly and association.   Dissent is the backbone of any democracy. Yet today dissent, which is a symbol of free speech and expression, is criminalised and the dissenter jailed, killed and persecuted. Today, it is a moment to remind the work of thousands of defenders across the world and to pay tribute to thousands who have left their legacies, thoughts and inspirations behind them'. - Henri Tiphagne, India.   * The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) is the main coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGO) fighting against torture, summary executions, enforced disappearances and all other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. With more than 200 affiliated organisations in its SOS-Torture Network, OMCT aims at accompanying, reinforcing and protecting anti-torture organisations in particular in erosive environments and provides a comprehensive system of support and protection for human rights defenders around the world.   http://www.omct.org/statements/2018/12/d25160/   * Human Rights Defenders World Summit 2018: Action Plan: http://bit.ly/2DejSdz
	View more stories