African governments are not well known for standing up against fellow leaders who violate the rule of law or commit human rights abuses. Ask most people what they expect from African governments in this area and you are likely not to hear anything positive. The reputation is not entirely undeserved, but is also the result of selective international coverage of African politics. Nonetheless, last week the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) made it clear that the rule of law does have importance in West Africa by refusing to recognize Mamadou Tandja as the president of Niger.

This is because Tandja, President of Niger since 1999, held a referendum in August that changed the constitution to allow him to stay in power for another three years without a vote and do away with term limits altogether. Some constitutional amendment are legal of course, though the articles setting term limits have a particular importance that most people would rather not alter, as seen earlier this year in Honduras. In the case of Niger, Tandja dissolved the parliament when it looked like they would block the referendum and then dissolved the Constitutional Court when it looked like they would proclaim the referendum unconstitutional. Doing so allowed the referendum to go ahead, but garnered criticism both at home and from abroad.

Back then ECOWAS expelled Niger from the organization, but that had little effect on events inside the country. So when Tandja’s second term expired on December 22, the organization released a statement stating that it no longer recognized Tandja as the rightful president of Niger since the referendum that allowed him to stay in power was illegal. According to the BBC, it is the first time that any inter-governmental organization has refused to recognize a sitting African head of state.

Of course the decision by ECOWAS not to recognize Tandja does little to change the situation in Niger. However as a landlocked state dependant on its ECOWAS neighbors to the south, Niger also cannot afford to ignore it completely. While municipal elections were held on Sunday in defiance of such criticism, Tandja has also re-engaged with the idea of negotiations with opposition leaders.  Unfortunately, he also reactivated arrest warrants for three exiled opposition leaders, putting into doubt his sincerity with the negotiation process.

But while Niger is one of three African countries that the US has suspended aid to, it is the pressure from its African neighbors that Tandja is feeling. The situation illustrates the importance of regional organizations in upholding the rule of law and setting human rights standards as their influence is often more powerful than the influence of powerful states from far away. However, though this is an important step for ECOWAS, the story is not yet over. In order to truly take a stand, ECOWAS states will need to continue their resolve as the situation evolves.

This is a story not known to many Americans.  It is about a journalist, caught up in the mayhem of war, in the absurdity of all or nothing/with us or against us attitude that undermined the standing of the US in the world.

He spent seven years of his life in the custody of the US military.  He was accused, initially, of filming an interview with Osama bin Laden.  It turned out to be someone else.  He was then accused of running a jihadist website.  It didn’t exist.  Then he was accused of selling missiles to Chechen rebels.  No evidence.  Seven years, behind the chicken wire…released with no apologies, no support.

“Make no mistake, these are the most dangerous people in the world,” said at the time, President George Bush.

Today, Sami al-Hajj is once again a journalist.  He leads the human rights desk at Al Jazeera where, I suppose, he is trying to make sense of his life and recuperate seven years of his life.

A life lost at the hands of US Marines and a society where the concept of risk prevention is so ingrained that it tosses out rationale and empathy.  And in the place of rationale and empathy we find fear, anger, and an exaggerated perception that demonizes the ‘other’ and inversely, creates new risks  (for more on this see Ulrich Beck’s The Risk Society).

Cliff Stattford Smith from Reprieve was able to briefly visit Sami al-Hajj at Guantanamo in 2006.  Smith jotted down notes which were then confiscated and sent, by snail mail, to Washington.  A month later, Smith received the notes, but only those allowed by the government.

“His interrogators (at Guantanamo) wanted only to turn him into an informant against Al Jazeera,” wrote Smith in the New Statesman.

When journalists are gagged by oppressive governments then human rights abuse and the witness thereof are silenced.

Eventually the truth comes out.  And eventually this chapter of American history will go down in shame.

With the holidays coming up and getting the 2009 Year in Review together, we have been a bit light on posting. However here are some links to a few of the human rights stories from this past week.

Detained in Iran, Russia, and China

Last week NPR reported on three human rights stories from Iran, Russia, and China which are now available online. All three deal with the detention of prominent figures under less than ideal circumstances, though the most high profile of the three is likely the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Liu co-authored Charter 08, modeled after Czechoslovakia’s infamous Charter 77, which calls for greater freedoms, protection of human rights, and the introduction of democracy in China. So far the petition has gained more than 10,000 signatures and as a result, Liu is due to go on trial for subversion this Wednesday. The Pen American Center is tracking the progress of Liu’s imprisonment and trial, which is bound to garner more attention than China would like.

Back in the spotlight: The Lord’s Resistance Army and the ICC

Two new reports released by the UN High Commission for Human Rights highlight possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) against civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan. The top leaders of the LRA were indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2005 for their role in the conflict in Northern Uganda, but there has been little progress since then in bringing them to justice. Similarly, peace talks with the LRA stalled over the issue of the ICC indictments. Although the Ugandan government did an about face and asked for the indictments to be dropped in favor of a complete amnesty in exchange for peace, the ICC refused and the conflict continued in much the same fashion as it has since 1987. These new reports will inevitably bring the LRA back into the spotlight, along with the peace versus justice debate that the conflict in Northern Uganda has come to epitomize.

Guatemala: It’s never too late to make right

In a ruling released on Monday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights condemned the Guatemalan government for failing to adequately investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the 1982 Dos Erres massacre where more than 200 civilians were killed by military forces over a three day period. The Court ordered the government to pay more than $3 million in compensation to survivors and family members of those killed. Despite the fact that the massacre occurred almost three decades ago, the Court also order the Guatemalan government to carry out a legitimate investigation to identify those who had participated in the massacre and the officials who ordered it.

The Dos Erres massacre was one of many that took place during Guatemala’s 26 year long civil war, but for many became emblematic of the general conflict. Although peace talks ended the conflict in 1996, few officials have been brought to justice for their role in the violence that left a quarter million dead, many of them indigenous Maya. The ruling by the IACHR makes it clear that others in the region have not forgotten and are determined not to let Guatemala sweep its bloody past completely under the rug.

Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.

– The Dalai Lama

As the year closes, it is appropriate to stop to look back and see how we have progressed or regressed in the area of human rights in 2009.  The thing about human rights is that the path to progress is rarely ever a straight line; often what looks like a step back will actually allow people to take a step forward. Such may be the case with top human rights stories of this past year such as the Green Movement in Iran, healthcare rights in the US, or the climate change talks currently going on in Copenhagen. One thing is certain: there are still many challenges ahead of us in the fight for human rights. However here are some thoughts on 2009 and what to look for in 2010 from regular bloggers Nikolaj Nielsen, Jessica Corsi, and Kimberly Curtis.

Person of the Year:

It’s always difficult to pick out one person in the course of a year who stands out. What is interesting is that this year all three of us chose groups rather than a single individual as the most important persons of the year.

Nikolaj’s pick: Frontline Journalists and Human Rights Defenders

Vincent Kessler/Reuters

This past year has seen numerous journalists and human rights defenders killed or imprisoned for their work in revealing the human rights abuses.  Many of these people worked on the frontlines, risking their lives to bring the truth to the rest of the world. The importance of this work, particularly in the past year, is one of the reasons why the European Parliament awarded the Russian human rights watchdog group Memorial the prestigious Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought this past week. Although the award will do little to bring back the journalists that have been slain this past year such as the 31 Filipino journalists killed in November or Russian journalist Natalya Estemirova who was killed in July, it again highlights the high value of their work and the price that so many have paid this past year for the human rights of others.

Jessica’s pick: Reproductive Rights Leaders in the United States

Recognition should be given to the myriad leaders and activists who organized in the U.S. to make sure that reproductive rights were not left out of the historic U.S. health care reform package.  In the midst of the economic crisis and the political opening of landmark U.S. healthcare reform–reform that would finally bring the U.S. closer to the rest of the developed world in terms of providing access to health care–reproductive rights advocates became locked into a battle with religious leaders that had successfully captured political power during the George W. Bush era.  While many within the U.S. Democratic Party, including the few women Senators and congress people, were willing to give up access to reproductive health care in order to sidestep this fight, reproductive rights advocates ranging from high school and University students to seasoned lobbyists and journalists made sure to keep the spotlight on access to safe and affordable abortion.

Ben Curtis/AP

Kimberly’s pick: Ordinary people coming together

From the record-setting attendance on the National Mall for Barack Obama’s inauguration to crowds of people in Berlin that marked the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems that 2009 was all about ordinary people coming together.  Some of these crowds celebrated change, while others such as those in Iran and Guinea came together to fight for their rights, often with grisly consequences. The predicted potential of virtual social networking seemed to finally be realized as people used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to not just talk about the latest developments in their social lives with friends, but communicate real information to the rest of the world about what was happening in their countries.  Although revolution did not happen in many of these places, 2009 showed that the power of the people is still alive and well in the 21^st century.

Most Unexpected Event:

Both Jessica and Nikolaj picked the same event: Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As the highest honor awarded in the humanitarian field, many around the world were surprised that he was awarded the prize before achieving any significant feats on the international stage.

But as Jessica notes, there were other reasons why the award was surprising:  Many claim that President Barack Obama

Bjorn Sigurdson/AP

was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to express international support for the U.S.’ reengagement with multilateral peace efforts, including efforts to bring an end to wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Another reason for the award might have been his policy of re-engagement with Muslim nations.  What was so surprising about this award was its timing.  It was given before the U.S. had fully elaborated withdrawal timelines and procedures for ending its wars, and after it had engaged in some decidedly unpeaceful and certainly unexpected military operations, such as the September 14 assassination of a suspected terrorist by U.S. Special Forces helicopters in southern Somalia.  If the prize is read as an indication of global sentiment for substantial changes in U.S. foreign policy, as opposed to a congratulations for actions that have already been taken, it comes as less of a surprise.

Kimberly chose the obvious event that has been written about on several other blogs: the Iranian election protests. Although Iranians overthrew the Shah in massive protests more than 30 years ago, Iran is not really known for street action due to the oppressive policies that the government is notorious for. That is one of the reasons why the post-election protests took so many by surprise. It’s also why the results of the protests - killings, arrests, prisoner abuses, and kangaroo courts - were not surprising at all. Still, there is a reason why most of the world was engrossed with the protests while they took place: whether you like it or not, Iran is an important regional power and will continue to be so. The post-election protests, while not a revolution, definitely altered the course of Iranian politics and will almost certainly be viewed in hindsight as the start of an important new chapter in Iranian history, hopefully one that gives more credence to human rights and the will of the people.

What to Watch for in 2010:

Kimberly’s predictions:

The general trend of using international law and universal jurisdiction to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity will continue as the International Criminal Court becomes more prominent and takes on new cases. However because justice is a retroactive approach to human rights abuses, there will also be increasing pressure on prescriptive action as well. In light of this and Obama’s Nobel lecture, the debate over the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P) is due for a revival. Only this time around, corporations will also be brought into the fold as their actions in conflict zones and with oppressive regimes will be increasingly scrutinized.

Jessica’s predictions:

Economic and social rights, legal entitlements for the poor: Poverty, increasing and deep, will continue to plague us for years due to the global recession.  As a result, we’re likely to see an increased focus on Economic and Social rights, such as the right to work, the right to fair remuneration, the right to food, and the right to health and healthcare.  Increased poverty will also refocus efforts around legal entitlements for the poor such as land ownership and community ownership of natural resources.

Climate justice: Climate justice will gain traction as the poor nations and poorest peoples of the world become better legally equipped and politically organized to hold everyone from corporations to governments accountable for the effects of climate change and pollution.  As a result we will see increased legal accountability for non-state actors.

Increasing legal accountability for State action during conflict: Powerful governments such as the US and the UK will be held more responsible than ever for violations of human rights during conflict, a trend helped in part by the increasing power of the International Criminal Court.  For example, a Milan Court convicted and sentenced 23 former CIA agents for the abduction of a Muslim cleric and rendition practices.  This trend of conviction in national courts will continue.

Anti-Muslim sentiments: Anti-Muslim racism and tension between the “Muslim world” and “the rest” will continue in the short and medium term, leading to more human rights violations, claims, court decisions, and policy developments on everything from religious clothing to state conducted or supported torture that was motivated by a person’s Islamic affiliations.

The mainstreaming of LGBT rights: LGBT rights will continue to become more mainstreamed in the global North.  We will witness expanded recognition of gay marriage and related civil rights and family law claims such as child custody and health care rights.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon, a member of the Likud party, knows his history.  Or rather his version. As he addressed a small gathering of journalists last week at the International Press Centre in Brussels, Dr. Navon spoke on his own personal terms.  In other words, what he said is officially…unofficial.

The Council of the European Union had just adopted measures to further bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority.  The EU is pushing for a two-state solution. It was in this context that brought Dr. Navon to Brussels.  He was not happy.

Dr. Navon, who also teaches international relations at the Abba Eban Graduate Program for Diplomatic Studies, is a man deeply entrenched in a realist perspective of world events.  According to Navon, wars found nation-states.  Land is taken, borders are drawn, and a society built.

He then said that the Palestinian Authority are not abiding with international law and claims they have desecrated Jewish heritage. International law says the settlements in the West Bank are also illegal.  But Navon contests this point.  He claims that what the international community calls 1967 borders  are instead, ceasefire lines, and are not subject to the same legal basis and definition.

He also said that the UN Human Rights Council is an Orwellian institution that treats Palestinian refugees on terms that are more favorable than “ordinary” refugees. “It is scandalous of a double-standard in international relations of Palestinian refugees,” he said. “Why is there a special UN institution for Palestinian refugees?”

Navon then said  that Israel does not have to abide by UN Resolution 194.  The resolution is only a recommendation.  The resolution established a UN body to facilitate peace between Israel and Palestine.

Access to safe and legal abortion could soon be declared a human right in Europe.  Irish reproductive rights advocates and 3 female plaintiffs have brought a case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), claiming harm suffered by Ireland’s abortion ban.  Ireland is unique amongst European countries in the extent to which is has legally opposed abortion.  Not only has Ireland banned abortions since 1861, accessing abortion can be punished with up to life imprisonment.  In a truly novel move, the “right of life of the unborn” is enshrined in Ireland’s Constitution, giving the document a particular religious slant. Recently, in a battle described as Rome vs. Brussels, Ireland tied its backing of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty to promises from the other 26 states parties that the Charter would not affect Ireland’s abortion ban.  Clearly, Ireland takes the ban extremely seriously and has  created  extensive legal and political barriers to accessing abortion. 

While Ireland is busy mounting its defense, claiming sovereignty rights and that the plaintiffs have not exhausted their domestic remedies–despite the substantial legal barriers the government has put in place, diminishing the idea that there is a domestic arena in which to contest the ban–the women involved are reminding the rest of the world of the human rights dimensions to accessing abortion.  All three had to travel abroad to have an abortion, and all three state that they experienced risk to their health, added trauma, stigma, and a financial burden because of this. Each faced particular challenges that led them to seek abortion and that made traveling abroad to access abortion more difficult—for example, one of the women discovered she was pregnant while undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer. The pregnancy threatened her life and the cancer treatment threatened the survival of the fetus. 

There are many human rights that are relevant to protecting access to safe and legal abortion, and this case could be a substantial step forward in articulating an “abortion as a human right” legal framework.  The Guardian UK reports that the plaintiffs are invoking several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, “notably the rights to life and to privacy and family life, as well as bans on inhuman and degrading treatment and on discrimination.” Human Rights Watch lists many more implicated rights, such as the right to health and health care; the right to security of person; the right to liberty; the right to information; the right to decide the number and spacing of children; the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress; and the right to freedom of thought and religion.  Advocates speaking before the court have framed the issue as an access to health care case and spoken out against allowing a State to create barriers to women’s health care.  The strong tradition of Catholicism in Ireland is the driving cause behind its abortion ban and Constitutional protection of the “rights of the unborn,” making this a case of a religiously motivated government enforcing a particular religious belief on all of the women and girls within its borders. 

For years anti-abortion activists in the US have sought to have international influence, and the ECtHR has allowed such groups to submit arguments in favor of Ireland’s abortion ban.  As I wrote about in November, the U.S. government is currently debating whether or not to expand barriers to women and girl’s health care by substantially limiting access to abortion via the Stupak amendment to the national health care reform act.  Despite the fact that the U.S. does not buy into most of the human rights implicated by access to abortion and does not frame U.S. abortion rights in the terms of this ECtHR case—such as equality and freedom from discrimination—freedom from imposition of religious views and the right to privacy do enjoy significant legal and political traction in the U.S.  If the ECtHR chooses to frame this as a right to health care and health issue, it could aid the case of those working against the Stupak amendment. 

But however the ECtHR frames it, a win for access to abortion as a human right will add substantial force to the cause of reproductive rights around the world.  

A new story today by the BBC details the growing problem of police violence in Nigeria.  The morgue at the Nigeria University Teaching Hospital overflows with bodies brought in by police, often unnamed but reported to be suspected criminals, such as armed robbers or thieves.  In some cases, that may be the case but in others, people are resolute that their slain family members were innocent of any alleged wrongdoing and in no way deserved to be shot and killed.

Being a police officer is a difficult job, and one that carries risks.  The outcome of some standoffs with armed criminals will almost inevitably be the death of someone, whether it be the police officer or the criminal.  But the reason why the police death toll in Nigeria is capturing more cynical attention is not just because of the numbers, but because of past indiscretions involving the police.  The most infamous of those recent cases is the “Apo Six,” who in June 2005 were allegedly gunned down at a police checkpoint with automatic rifles, and then accused of being armed robbers.  The government rejected the police’s story and the case went to trial, but has gotten nowhere since then.  Blog posts out of Nigeria wonder if there will ever be justice for the Apo Six while detailing the never-ending legal process that surrounds it.

There are also signs that not much has changed in Nigeria since the Apo Six.  The BBC story points out the names of seven people brought in dead by police: Kennis Victor Okonkwo, Adolphus Odumegwu, Sunday Okoye, Hussein Yusuf, Ugochukwu Ogbonnaya, Amichi Nnamdi, and Ifeani Eze Leonard.  On September 11, the Inspector of Police held a press conference where the seven prisoners accused of kidnapping in Enugu State were lined up before the press as a sign of excellent police work on an issue that has taken on more public importance in recent years.  However, within five days, all seven were dead and brought into the university morgue by police.  How seven detainees in police custody wound up dead has yet to be explained, and based on the activity around the Apo Six, probably never will be.

Of course, Nigeria in not alone in this problem.  Just today Human Rights Watch released a report on extrajudicial police violence in Brazil, while Amnesty international released a report on the lack of government interest in extrajudicial military violence in that country’s drug war.  The lack of accountability for police forces in Mexico has been covered by this blog before, and has been covered by other FPA blogs for Brazil.  Further afield, South Africa is still dealing with the fallout of a police shooting of a three year old boy supposedly suspected of holding a gun (which was never found).  Again, this is not to single out specific countries, because they certainly are not alone.  However it does highlight the particular problem that occurs when police become killers.

This is because rights do not exist in a vacuum and are not automatically upheld simply with their proclamation.  For rights to truly exist as a social norm, they need reinforcement by being upheld when they are violated.  Usually, we delegate this important role to the judicial system, which by its very nature relies on police to bring to it the people who need to be held accountable for such crimes.  This system works well where both the police and judiciary can be counted on to stay within the bounds of their fields, however when it is the police themselves guilty of criminal acts, it becomes increasingly difficult to address the problem.  This is because the police are often not willing to hand over their own so easily, while the judicial system often does not have the capacity to investigate and arrest people without the help of police.

Given the importance of the police in upholding most rights, governments should pay more attention to how their police forces act.  Extrajudicial violence does not only hurt those who are its victims, but also society at large because of their inability to depend on the police to do their work properly and within the bounds of the law.  The reports that came out today demonstrate that police violence continues to be a problem in many parts of the world; it is only right that the rest of the world should start paying attention to the toll that this takes on all human rights.

Last Sunday, Swiss voters opted to legally ban the construction of any new minarets in the country.  Since then, the topic has been debated online and in the media, with plenty of analysis by people on both sides of the ban on what the minaret ban is really about, or what minarets are really about.  Despite the opinions offered on these questions, it is clear that last weekend’s vote put Switzerland front and center on the question of what modern Europe is really about.

Historically, Europe has always had a problem with the “other” aspect of their societies.  While the most blatant examples of this can be found with anti-Semitism, whether it be the 1492 expulsion of Jews from Spain or the Shoah, other groups have faced their fair share of discrimination and mistreatment due to their perceived non-Europeaness.  Such treatment continues today, as seen with the Czech government’s admission that Romani women are still being forcibly sterilized and the continuing anti-Semitism detailed by Ben Moscovitch in his blog post today.  Islamophobia is also part of this trend, and has been growing since 2001.  Although such fear may be part of human nature, it also should have no institutionalized place in Europe today.

In addition to bans on headscarves and minarets, there has been a substantial increase in violence against Muslims across Europe, but also a reluctance on the part of police forces and governments to address the problem.  Doing so essentially says to European Muslims, “You have rights, but don’t depend on us to uphold them.”  Similarly, the ban on minarets (and headscarves for that matter) essentially says, “We tolerate your religion, as long as we never have to see any sign of it.”  Unsurprisingly, this does not come as a comfort to many European Muslims and falls far short of the human rights norms of equality and freedom of expression that European countries love to proclaim.  It also creates a cycle of exclusion, which ultimately leads to the creation of two communities - the us and them, the included and the excluded, the haves and have-nots - with no bridges in between.

That is why the minaret ban is central to the question of what Modern Europe is really about, though the answer to the question is not yet clear.  In a way, the vote on minarets does pose traditional European values against something, though it is not really Islam and it is not the traditional values that anyone should be eager to preserve.  Instead, it squares them off against the modern values that Europe molded from the lessons it supposedly learned from the Holocaust and the Cold War.  The election asked Swiss voters to choose between traditional exclusion and tolerance of diversity; this time around, the voters went with tradition over progress.  The general trend across Europe has been the same.  However, it is still early in the debate.  Hopefully, the attention that the Minaret Ban is getting in the media will encourage people to look at the reasons for their prejudice, and start a constructive dialogue with the same people they have been trying to exclude rather than continue on with the regular status quo.