View previous stories
	I'm a humanitarian. Don't prosecute me for doing my job by Michiel Hofman MSF, New Humanitarian Netherlands   12 Nov. 2019   In 2011, I negotiated in Afghanistan with the Taliban, the Afghan government, and the United States to establish a trauma hospital in the northern city of Kunduz that would care for the wounded and sick, regardless of who they were.   Initially hostile to the idea that Taliban fighters should have access to treatment, the American and Afghan governments, both signatories to the Geneva Conventions, eventually relented that medical care for wounded and sick soldiers - on both sides of a conflict - lies at the heart of today's rules of war.   Between 2012 and 2015, Medecins Sans Frontieres treated thousands of patients, mostly civilians, but also Taliban and Afghan army patients. This we celebrated as a win for impartial humanitarian action.   But front lines changed, and during a fateful week in October 2015 when the Taliban took control of the town, US and Afghan counter-terrorism forces declared the entire area, and the people in it, as hostile territory.   I still shudder remembering what happened next. Arguing that Taliban fighters had - taken over - our hospital, the United States bombed it five times over the span of two hours, until it burned to the ground, with everyone in it. The only Taliban inside were patients - hors combat. I would return to Afghanistan shortly after to mourn the lives of 48 staff and patients who died that day, some scorched to death in their hospital beds.   The bombing of our hospital in Kunduz was condemned around the world, and the United States ultimately financially compensated the families of the victims. But an independent investigation to determine why the hospital was bombed was denied.   It is an extreme example of what can go wrong when the impartiality of humanitarian action is not respected.   A new bill before the Dutch government threatens to make the same mistake. Today, the Dutch Senate's Commission on Justice and Security hears testimony, including from me, on the proposed counter-terrorism law (35125).   The law proposes to criminalise citizens travel without Dutch government permission to areas it designates as controlled by 'terrorist' organisations. The criteria upon which such permission will be granted are not clear.   Aimed originally at preventing Dutch citizens from joining the so-called Islamic State, this broad new law has serious inadvertent effects on me and many others in many other places around the world.   As a Dutch aid worker regularly travelling to such areas to deliver lifesaving medical assistance, this new law, if adopted, essentially obliges me to prove I have no terrorist intentions prior to saving lives.   This remarkable reversal of the burden of proof not only restricts and endangers my own profession, but violates the humanitarian principle of impartiality that populations trapped in conflict rely on. This principle guarantees that their needs, not which side of the front line they find themselves, determines their access to assistance.   Impartiality is the core tenet of humanitarianism relief and a principle The Netherlands subscribes to in its own aid policy and as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.   Introducing secondary criteria, such as who controls the region, as a factor in whether aid can be dispatched effectively breaches this core principle.   The Dutch law provides an exemption for EU, UN, and International Committee of the Red Cross staff, but amendments to include all humanitarians were rejected. The key argument seems to be that it is difficult to define a humanitarian worker.   Other countries don't see this difficulty. The United Kingdom for example, hardly a country that can be accused of 'being soft on terrorism', has already adopted similar laws. While these laws remain problematic in many other aspects, the UK did find it possible to grant a blanket exemption for humanitarians. They used the definition supplied by international humanitarian law: humanitarian aid is action by individuals or organisations that abides by the rules of impartiality.   This is not an obscure legal problem or a cerebral argument on abstract principles, but a decision that will have real-life consequences. When counter-terrorism trumps International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the consequences can be deadly - as the Kunduz bombing so sadly showed.   The proposed law may not represent a blanket ban on aid to 'terrorist'-controlled areas, but having to obtain permission from a state on ill-defined political criteria for seemingly arbitrary designated areas will severely impede efforts to provide lifesaving assistance.   In northeast Nigeria, the consequences of this logic have deprived entire populations trapped in areas controlled by armed groups such as Boko Haram of any assistance. Nigeria applies far-reaching domestic counter-terrorism laws, which, like the proposed Dutch law, require aid agencies to get permission from the state to enter areas outside of its control. This permission is never granted. As a result, anyone unlucky enough to be trapped inside gets no aid.   Similar laws in Syria have led to the criminalisation of almost all humanitarian aid in opposition-controlled areas, with aid agencies such as MSF that continue to provide care accused of supporting terrorism, and people trapped in besieged areas, such as East Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta, left without any assistance at all.   Anti-terror laws in Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia make it all but impossible for staff from these countries - on which almost all aid operations rely - to provide any assistance to populations trapped in regions in Somalia controlled by the militant group al-Shabab. As a result, people in such areas, which make up about 70 percent of the country, receive only a fraction of the aid going to government-controlled areas.   For a medical organisation such as ours, the consequences of such legislation are even more dire. Under international law, both civilians and combatants have a right to medical care.   This was one of the main purposes of the Geneva Conventions, which allow special protection under IHL for an impartial humanitarian body that collects the wounded and sick. Combatants receiving medical care are considered hors combat and have the same status as civilians. This means MSF has the legal right - and responsibility - to treat everyone, even 'terrorists' and even in 'designated areas'.   The Netherlands, as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, should ensure that humanitarian exemption clauses are consistently included in their criminal and counter-terrorism regulations, including this draft law.   As a Dutch aid worker, I cannot apply for permissions that will violate my impartiality, delaying or even denying aid based on a political decision. So I face a stark choice. Do I stop working in such areas, or avoid returning to The Netherlands, where I may be prosecuted? Saving lives is not a crime. Under international law, preventing me from doing so is.   * Michiel Hofman has led MSF missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Brazil, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo, Liberia, Russia, South Sudan, and Sri Lanka. Visit the related web page
	The human right to safe and healthy working conditions by Baskut Tuncak UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes   Oct. 2019   Despite over 50 years of global recognition, unimaginable advancements in science, medicine and technology, and specific efforts in certain countries and contexts, the right of all workers to safe and healthy working conditions sadly remains far more a privilege, than a universal human right, says Baskut Tuncak, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes.   Tuncak tells States that although safe and healthy working conditions is a globally recognized human right, International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates indicate that 2.7 million workers die from unsafe working conditions and exposure each year.   In 2007, Hwang Yumi died in her father's taxi on her way to hospital. It was five years after she proudly began a job manufacturing consumer products, were she was likely exposed to toxic substances every day without meaningful consent. Yumi died 20 months after she was diagnosed with leukaemia, at the age of 23.   Since his daughter's death, Yumi's father did everything he could to ensure there were no more victims. In his mission to prevent the recurrence of abuses he repeatedly turned down substantial offers of compensation by the company.   After an 11-year campaign for justice and accountability by Mr. Hwang and other human rights defenders, the company agreed to compensation and prevention measures to realize the right of over 200 workers to an effective remedy. Tuncak says of the case that although the outcome is a positive step, it only concerns one company in one industry in one country.   'Workers are unquestionably among the most vulnerable to toxic exposures. They are exposed the first and the most', Tuncak says. 'Among workers, there are those that are even more vulnerable and less likely to be adequately protected, such as those working in certain sectors, those living in poverty and workers of reproductive age, whose children also bear the burden of exposure to toxic substances'.   In this regard, he cites the case of Yvette, who worked daily with an unidentified substance that she had nicknamed 'green gunk', in the high-technology sector of an industrialized country, never informed by her employer of well-known reproductive health risks of exposure to the chemical mixture.   By the time Yvette's child was four years old, her child was still unable to walk or talk because his neurodevelopment had been irreversibly impacted. Now in his thirties, he continues to face life with disabilities that could have been prevented.   Tuncak's latest report is the fruit of 25 years of research under the human rights and toxics mandate that outlines 15 principles for States to end the exposure of workers to hazardous substances.   These principles build upon the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, ILO Conventions and multilateral environmental agreements on toxics.   The report's recommendations were echoed in a resolution adopted at the 42nd session of the Human Rights Council. That resolution encourages States, businesses and other actors to implement Tuncak's 15 principles through their legal and policy frameworks, as well as initiatives and programmes to strengthen the coherence between human rights and occupational health and safety standards.   The resolution also recognizes that States have a duty to prevent exposure to toxic substances, and businesses a corresponding responsibility.   Seven of Tuncak's principles focus on prevention. 'Every worker has the right to be protected from toxic exposures at work As illustrated in the case of Yvette, protecting workers from exposure to toxic substances has a ripple effect, it also protects their families, their communities and the environment', the expert says.   'In exercising these duties and responsibilities, hazard elimination is paramount, and so too is protecting the integrity of the science on which decisions are made'.   Principles 8 to 11 are set on the interlinkages between the human right to safe and healthy work and workers right to information, participation and assembly. Tuncak stresses that 'Every worker has the right to know, including to know the implications of exposure, the actions being taken to prevent exposure and their rights in relation to such exposure'.   He adds that, 'workers find strength in numbers. The right to safe and healthy work is inseparable from the freedom of association, the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining'.   The final four principles address the right of workers to access an effective remedy. Workers, their families and their communities must have immediate access to an appropriate and effective remedy, which should be available from the time of exposure.   The Special Rapporteur points out, however, that for many victims the impacts or exposure are irreparable and irreversible. The prevention of further exposure by workers is an essential element of a guarantee of non-repetition, he says.   Tuncak further expresses his concern that employers still refuse to acknowledge safe and healthy work as a being human right, and that 50 years after its global recognition by the United Nations, it still is not one of ILO's fundamental principles and rights at work. Visit the related web page
	View more stories