View previous stories
	UN mandate holder subject to Government intimidation is a serious cause for concern by Dainius Puras, Michel Forst Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights   Nov. 2018   Attacks on UN civil society allies raise alarm. (OHCHR)   Civil society actors, human rights defenders and UN human rights officials are alarmed by increasing attacks on those cooperating with the United Nations and on human rights defenders more generally.   UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Andrew Gilmour, who is tasked with drawing attention to the issue of reprisals against individuals and civil society organizations for cooperation with the UN, told a recent meeting at UN headquarters in New York on the subject that circumstantial evidence pointed to a worsening situation.   Gilmour observed that the Secretary-General’s report on the issue for this year, which he presented to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in September, had cited 38 countries where cases of reprisals for cooperation with the UN were reported. The year before, the number was 32 countries and before that, the yearly average was 15.   "This is the tip of the iceberg. There are many more cases that are either not reported to us or we cannot publicize because of lack of consent of the victims or because we fear for their security," he said. Moreover, the number of cases reported to the United Nations need to be read with a caveat.   "Paradoxically, we are more likely to get reports of reprisals from countries that are relatively more open, than from those that have a more restrictive environment for civil society," he said.   While most cases of reprisals are committed by state agents, the Secretary-General has underlined the need to pay attention to actions by non-state actors. Of concern are increasing online attacks, intimidation and smear campaigns against human rights defenders.   Gilmour highlighted three concerning trends: The growing tendency to label human rights defenders as "terrorists" or "criminals" in an attempt to discredit them; applying legal and administrative procedures to retaliate against them; and abuse of accreditation and security procedures at the UN to block civil society.   Many speakers at the meeting were critical of the UN Committee on NGOs, a subcommittee of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) composed of states. The NGO Committee, as it is commonly known, is responsible for the accreditation of non-governmental organizations to ECOSOC, a requirement for participation in some UN meetings.   The NGO International Service for Human Rights said that the NGO Committee has been turned by some countries into a tool to frustrate or punish NGOs.   "What is happening in the UN [NGO Committee] is not incidental but reflects what is happening on the ground in certain countries," said Eleonor Openshaw of the International Service for Human Rights. She noted that NGOs are denied accreditation without any hearing; all it takes is an objection of a member state without, in most cases, any substantiation.   Many speakers highlighted the "emblematic" case of the International Dalit Solidarity Network, whose application for accreditation has been deferred by the NGO Committee for 10 years now. The organization advocates for non-discrimination of Dalits. Over the 10 years, its application has received some 83 questions, all from India, in some cases the same question several times over, resulting in its application being repeatedly postponed for consideration until the following year.   The International Service for Human Rights also highlighted the case of the Alkarama Foundation. The Swiss-based foundation, which advocates for the protection of human rights in the Arab region, had been recommended for ECOSOC special consultative status by the NGO Committee in May 2017. In July 2017, ECOSOC decided not to endorse the NGO Committee’s recommendation following a motion introduced by the United Arab Emirates, which cited "its [the foundation’s] clear connections to terrorism".   Openshaw said that even worse, some countries are beginning to use the NGO Committee, whose proceedings are public and often webcast, to initiate unsubstantiated allegations, which are then picked up outside the United Nations.   Transparency and fairness   The European Union pointed to the abuse of the "no objection procedure" that is often applied to enable civil society participation in large UN meetings. The EU noted that some NGOs are kept out on the objection of any country, which doesn’t have to give any reasons for its objection.   The Secretary-General has called for transparency and fairness in the manner the NGO Committee carries out its accreditation process.   Independent human rights experts, notably members of the Commission of Inquiry on the human rights situation in Burundi, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee and the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, Victoria Tauli Corpuz, have also come under attacks by governments for their UN-related work. Yanghee Lee, during her presentation to the General Assembly this year, drew attention to reprisals faced by people in Myanmar who had spoken to her during her visits.   Welcoming the increasing recognition of the importance of civil society participation in UN meetings, he regretted attempts to create a hostile environment for such participation. Among recent examples, he cited attacks by Israeli diplomats on the head of the Israeli NGO B’tselem, who was invited to address the UN Security Council.   "If the United Nations cannot ensure secure space for civil society in the glare of the cameras in New York, I fear what happens on the ground, where there may not be anyone watching," said Gilmour.   Amnesty International estimates that 3000 human rights defenders have been killed – or one every second day – since 1998 when the UN Declaration for protection of human rights defenders was adopted.   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/AttackedForTalkingToUN.aspx   Aug. 2018   UN mandate holder subject to Government intimidation is a serious cause for concern. (Dainius Puras, Michel Forst)   The Philippines: UN experts urge further action to remove names on Government’s “terror list”.   UN human rights experts have welcomed a ruling in the Philippines declaring that the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, is a non-party to the government’s recent petition which seeks to declare the New People’s Army and the Communist Party of the Philippines as “terrorist organisations”.   “While we welcome this decision, we are still deeply concerned about the continued naming of many others, including human rights defenders, in the petition, as this tags them as terrorists,” said the UN experts.   The decision was issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila on 27 July in relation to a petition filed in February 2018 by the Department of Justice. In the petition, Ms Tauli-Corpuz was named on a list, with more than 600 others, de facto accusing them as terrorists and alleged members of the New People’s Army and the Communist Party of the Philippines.   Since February, there has been a global outcry against the so-called “terrorist” list. The inclusion of Ms Tauli-Corpuz was considered as an act of retaliation for public comments she had made about the Philippines in her mandate as Special Rapporteur.   "The fact that a UN mandate holder was the subject of such an unacceptable attack is very serious cause for concern,” said Dainius, Chair of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures.   “Over the years, member States of the Human Rights Council have nominated independent experts to assess the situation of human rights around the world. These member States therefore have a corresponding responsibility to secure and respect the authority and legitimacy of the UN experts, and ensure that they can fulfil their mandates in a safe and unimpeded manner, without any intimidation," he emphasised.   The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst, said: “The inclusion of human rights defenders, amongst them indigenous peoples, on the Government list amounts to intimidation and harassment of people who are peacefully defending their rights.   “Removing a few high-profile names from the list will not make us stop drawing attention to the situation of the others, whose physical safety and integrity is still under immense pressure,” he added.   Both UN experts are urging the Government of the Philippines to respect not only the court order, but to remove all human rights defenders from the “terrorist” list and, more generally, to create an environment that would allow them to continue their legitimate work of defending rights without reprisal or fear.   * Mr. Michel Forst is Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, and Mr. Dainius Puras, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and Chairperson of the Coordination Committee of the Special Procedures.   http://aseanmp.org/2019/02/23/asean-mps-renew-call-for-release-of-sen-leila-de-lima/ http://www.thenation.com/article/leila-de-lima-maria-ressa-duterte-philippines/ http://aseanmp.org/2019/02/14/philippines-arrest-of-rappler-ceo-maria-ressa/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/seeded-in-social-media-jailed-philippine-journalist-says-facebook-is-partly-responsible-for-her-predicament/   # Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx Visit the related web page
	As rich nations close the door on refugees, Uganda welcomes them by Joseph Goldstein New York Times, agencies   In a rising era of xenophobia, Uganda has made hosting refugees a core national policy, by Joseph Goldstein. (New York Times, agencies)   President Donald Trump is vowing to send the military to stop migrants trudging from Central America. Europe’s leaders are paying African nations to block migrants from crossing the Mediterranean — and detaining the ones who make it in filthy, overcrowded camps.   But Solomon Osakan has a very different approach in this era of rising xenophobia. From his uncluttered desk in northwest Uganda, he manages one of the largest concentrations of refugees anywhere in the world: more than 400,000 people scattered across his rural district.   He explained what he does with them: Refugees are allotted some land — enough to build a little house, do a little farming and “be self-sufficient,” said Osakan, a Ugandan civil servant. Here, he added, the refugees live in settlements, not camps — with no barbed wire, and no guards in sight.   “You are free, and you can come and go as you want,” Osakan added.   As many nations are securing their borders and turning refugees away, Uganda keeps welcoming them. And they keep coming, fleeing catastrophes from across this part of Africa.   In all, Uganda has as many as 1.25 million refugees on its soil, perhaps more, making it one of the most welcoming countries in the world, according to the United Nations.   And while Uganda’s government has made hosting refugees a core national policy, it works only because of the willingness of rural Ugandans to accept an influx of foreigners on their land and shoulder a big part of the burden.   Uganda is not doing this without help. About $200 million in humanitarian aid to the country this year will largely pay to feed and care for the refugees. But they need places to live and small plots to farm, so villages across the nation’s north have agreed to carve up their communally owned land and share it with the refugees, often for many years at a time.   “Our population was very few and our community agreed to loan the land,” said Charles Azamuke, 27, of his village’s decision in 2016 to accept refugees from South Sudan, which has been torn apart by civil war. “We are happy to have these people. We call them our brothers.”   UN officials have pointed to Uganda for its “open border” policy. While the United States, a much more populous nation, has admitted more than 3 million refugees since 1975, the US government settles them in the country after they have first been thoroughly screened overseas.   By contrast, Uganda has essentially opened its borders to refugees, rarely turning anyone away.   Some older Ugandans explain that they, too, had been refugees once, forced from their homes during dictatorship and war. And because the government ensures that spending on refugees benefits Ugandans as well, younger residents spoke of how refugees offered them some unexpected opportunities.   “I was a farmer. I used to dig,” Azamuke said. But after learning Arabic from refugees from South Sudan, he got a better job — as a translator at a new health clinic that serves the newcomers.   His town, Ofua, is bisected by a dirt road, with the Ugandans living on the uphill side and the South Sudanese on the downhill side. The grass-thatched homes of the Ugandans look a bit larger and sturdier, but not much.   As the sun began to set one recent afternoon, a group of men on the Ugandan side began to pass around a large plastic bottle of waragi, a home brew. On the South Sudanese side, the men were sober, gathered around a card game.   On both sides, the men had nothing but tolerant words for one another. “Actually, we don’t have any problems with these people,” said Martin Okuonzi, a Ugandan farmer cleaning his fingernails with a razor blade.   As the men lounged, the women and girls were still at work, preparing dinner, tending children, fetching water and gathering firewood. They explained that disputes did arise, especially as the two groups competed for limited resources like firewood.   “We’ve been chased away,” said Agnes Ajonye, a 27-year-old refugee from South Sudan. “They say we are destroying their forests.”   And disputes broke out at the well, where Ugandan women insist they should be allowed to skip ahead of refugees.   “If we hadn’t given you the land you live on, wouldn’t you be dying in Sudan?” said Adili Chandia, a 62-year-old refugee, recounting the lecture she and others got from a frustrated Ugandan woman waiting in line.   Ugandan officials often talk about the spirit of Pan-Africanism that motivates their approach to refugees. President Yoweri Museveni, an autocratic leader who has been in power for 32 years, says Uganda’s generosity can be traced to the precolonial days of warring kingdoms and succession disputes, when losing factions often fled to a new land.   This history of flight and resettlement is embedded in some of the names of local groups around western Uganda, like Batagwenda, which means “the ones that could not continue travelling.”   The government encourages the nation to go along with its policy by directing that 30 per cent of foreign aid destined for refugees be spent in ways that benefit Ugandans nearby. So when money for refugees results in new schools, clinics and wells, Ugandans are more likely to welcome than resent them.   For Museveni, hosting refugees has given him relevance and political capital abroad at a time when he would otherwise have little.   A former guerrilla fighter who quickly stabilized much of his country, Museveni was once hailed as an example of new African leadership. He was relatively quick to confront the AIDS epidemic, and he invited back Ugandans of Indian and Pakistani descent who had been expelled during the brutal reign of Idi Amin in the 1970s.   But his star has fallen considerably. He has clung to power for decades. His security forces have beaten political opponents. Freedom of assembly and expression are severely curtailed.   Even so, Uganda’s openness toward refugees makes Museveni important to European nations, which are uneasy at the prospect of more than 1 million refugees heading for Europe.   Other African nations also host a significant number of refugees, but recent polls show that Ugandans are more likely than their neighbours in Kenya or Tanzania to support land assistance or the right to work for refugees.   Part of the reason is that Ugandans have fled their homes as well, first during the murderous reign of Amin, then during the period of retribution after his overthrow, and again during the 1990s and 2000s, when Joseph Kony, the guerrilla leader who terrorized northern Uganda, left a trail of kidnapped children and mutilated victims.   Many Ugandans found refuge in what is today South Sudan. Mark Idraku, 57, was a teenager when he fled with his mother to the area. They received 2 acres of farmland, which helped support them until they returned home six years later.   “When we were in exile in Sudan, they also helped us,” Idraku said. “Nobody ever asked for a single coin.”   Idraku has since returned the favor, loaning 3 acres to a South Sudanese refugee named Queen Chandia, 37. Chandia said the land — along with additional plots other Ugandans allow her to farm — has made all the difference.   Her homestead of thatched-roof huts teemed with children tending their chores, grinding nuts into paste and maize into meal. Chandia is the mother of a girl and two boys. But over the years, as violence hollowed out her home country, Chandia started taking in the orphaned children of relatives and friends. Now 22 children call her “mom.”   A refugee for nearly her entire life, Chandia arrived in Uganda as a young girl nearly 30 years ago. For years, she worried about being expelled.   “Maybe these Ugandans will change their minds on us,” she said, describing the thought that plagued her. Then one day the worry stopped.   But Osakan, the administrator who oversees refugee affairs in the country’s extreme northwest, is anxious. There is an Ebola outbreak over the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Osakan fears what might happen if — or when — a refugee turns up in Uganda with the dreaded illness.   “It would destroy all the harmony between refugees and host communities,” he said, explaining that it would probably lead to calls to seal the border.   For now, the border is very much open, although the number of refugees arriving has fallen significantly. In one of the newer settlements, many of the refugees came last year, fleeing an attack in a South Sudanese city. But some complained about receiving too little land, about a quarter acre per family, which is less than previous refugees had received.   “Even if you have skills — in carpentry — you are not given a chance,” said one refugee, Simon Ludoru. He looked over his shoulder, to where a construction crew was building a nursery school. The schoolhouse would teach both local Ugandan and South Sudanese children together, but the workers were almost entirely Ugandan, he said.   At the construction site, the general contractor, Sam Omongo, 50, said he had hired refugees for the job. “Oh, yes,” he exclaimed.   How many? “Not a lot, actually,” he acknowledged. “I have about three.” Omongo called one over.   “Are you a refugee?” Omongo asked the slight man. “No, I’m from Uganda,” he said softly. His name was Amos Chandiga, 28. He lived nearby and owned 6 acres of land, though he worked only 4 of them. He had lent the other two to a pair of refugees.   “They asked me, and I gave it to them,” Chandiga explained. He patted his chest. “It comes from here, in my heart.” http://bit.ly/2Oc851D   http://www.nrc.no/ http://www.unhcr.org/emergencies.html http://www.unhcr.org/news.html http://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/21/african-union-needs-protect-continents-displaced http://www.nrc.no/news/2019/february/african-countries-must-step-up-their-support-for-displaced-people/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories