View previous stories
	Cultural rights threatened by global avalanche of hate by Karima Bennoune UN Special Rapporteur for cultural rights, agencies   March 2017   The UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Karima Bennoune, told the Human Rights Council in Geneva: “We face a global avalanche of hate in the form of rising fundamentalism and extremism around the world. This must be tackled with urgency, using a human rights approach. Culture and cultural rights are critical components of this response”.   The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned at the normalization of fundamentalist and extremist ideology and rhetoric in many political, cultural and media contexts, in diverse forms and in all regions of the world, and the increasing embrace they find in mainstream political parties and candidates.   In her report to the UN Human Rights Council, the expert highlights how diverse fundamentalist and extremist ideologies have in common a mindset based on intolerance of differences and pluralism, and all attempt to stamp out cultural diversity and dissent.   She gives examples of cultural engineering aimed at redesigning culture based on monolithic world views, focused on “purity” and enmity toward “the other”; these include the policing of “honour” and “modesty”, claims of cultural and moral superiority and the imposition of what is hailed as “true religion” or “authentic culture”.   “These ideologies abuse cultural rights by stifling freedom of artistic expression and curtailing scientific freedom,” she said. “They impose ways of life, including through pressuring educational institutions, personnel and students, targeting minorities, promoting discrimination that infringes on the right to take part in cultural life, erasing symbols of coexistence, and undermining the universality of human rights”, she added.   “Universality is one of the most important tools in the struggle against the harmful effects of fundamentalism and extremism on cultural rights, and must be resolutely defended,” Ms. Bennoune said.   Emphasizing that the threat from fundamentalist and extremist ideologies was far-ranging, she said extremists also aimed to limit the enjoyment of women’s human rights, and restrict the sexual and reproductive rights of all.   Artists and intellectuals are often targeted, she said, both because creativity and expression are seen as a threat by fundamentalists and extremists and also because they often resist and offer alternatives.   The Special Rapporteur stressed that cultural rights are a critical counterweight to fundamentalism and extremism and called for more to be done to guarantee the conditions for all to fully enjoy them. “The arts, education, science and culture are among the best ways to fight fundamentalism and extremism and to prevent or stop the human rights violations to which they give rise. They are not luxuries, but critical for promoting inclusion, making space for peaceful contestation and protecting youth from radicalization,” Ms. Bennoune emphasized.   In her report, Ms. Bennoune called for policies to combat discrimination in the right to take part in cultural life or promote freedom of artistic expression, scientific freedom and education as core aspects of combating fundamentalism and extremism. She also called for policies to promote and protect the separation of religion and State, and ensure that those at risk from fundamentalist and extremist abuse, including as a result of exercising their cultural rights, were not returned to any contexts where they will be at risk of xenophobic attack. “It is a tragic spectacle to witness victims of one form of extremism becoming victims of another when they seek safe haven”.   “In particular,” she said, “we must listen to the local opponents of fundamentalism and extremism – civil society, human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, educators and people who simply wish to participate in cultural life in their own way -, who have been resisting extremists in some cases for decades. They must be granted the necessary protection against the threat fundamentalist and extremist movements represent and should be included in strategic discussions at all relevant levels”.   In the report, the Special Rapporteur points to cases from all regions where fundamentalist and extremist ideology has motivated abuses of cultural rights by state and non-state actors; she condemns attacks on freedom of artistic expression in Russia, Saudi Arabia, India and Iran, and on intellectuals in Bangladesh.   She is also concerned about extremists interfering with the right to take part in cultural life without discrimination such as post-election violence and threats in the United States, sometimes targeting educational and cultural institutions. She highlighted violence against minorities and their cultural sites whether recurring in parts of Europe, or widespread as in Myanmar, and possibly rising even to the level of genocide at the hands of “hyper-extremists” such as Daesh.   Ms. Bennoune said diverse forms of fundamentalism and extremism, though sometimes viewed as opponents, often actually reinforce each other. “One form of fundamentalism or extremism is not a justification for another. Each is a reinforcing reminder of the global humanist crisis that lies before us. We must break out of this vicious circle that will leave youth globally facing a political landscape offering only a bleak choice of competing extremisms”.   The Special Rapporteur called for effective, concerted global action to combat fundamentalism and extremism, and stressed that this must be done in accordance with international standards and not misused as a justification for violations of human rights. She said: “Whereas it is important to clearly condemn and act against violent forms of extremism, we must also tackle fundamentalist and extremist ideologies as these provide the basis for violence and violations. Extremist actors will not be truly disarmed unless their ideology is comprehensively challenged and repudiated,” she emphasized.   * Access the report via the link below.   26 Feb 2017   ARTICLE 19 at the UN Human Rights Council: What is at Stake for Free Expression?   Today, 27 February, the UN Human Rights Council begins its 34th Session (HRC34) in Geneva – over the next four weeks the UN’s top human rights body is expected to act on some of the world’s most pressing freedom of expression violations and abuses.   The agenda is tightly packed: this Session kicks off with the UN Secretary General and high level representatives of the world’s governments setting out their visions for human rights in 2017. Under the multi-coloured ceiling of the Human Rights Council chamber, a month of debates and discussions on human rights will follow, with hundreds of parallel negotiations and meetings taking place alongside. The Session will culminate on the 23 and 24 of March: States will adopt resolutions with commitments to act against human rights violations and abuses, including of the right to freedom of expression.   ARTICLE 19 will be present throughout the Session to advocate for progressive free expression standards, and to hold States to account where they are failing to live up to their obligations and commitments.   Our priorities are: Accountability for freedom of expression violations in Turkey, Myanmar, and Iran; The adoption of strong resolutions on the right to privacy in the digital age, on freedom of religion or belief, and on combatting religious intolerance, with clear commitments to implementation; Mandate renewals for the UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression and on human rights defenders, and for the appointment of a new mandate holder on freedom of assembly and association; Opposition to the “terrorism and human rights” resolution, which threatens to undermine freedom of expression; Recognition of the dangers facing environmental human rights defenders, and the need for greater legal protections for them.   Though many of these issues were raised in Geneva last March, 2017 is a new year with a new Human Rights Council membership. The 47 member-states with voting powers include some of the world’s worst violators of freedom of expression: it is therefore essential that other States stand up for freedom of expression and ensure accountability for violations and abuses. http://bit.ly/2mtF6cX   * ARTICLE 19 envisages a world where people are free to: speak their opinions, participate in decision-making and make informed choices about their lives. Freedom of expression and freedom of information are fundamental human rights that are central to freedom and democracy. People everywhere must be able to exercise their right to freedom of expression and their right to information. Without these rights, democracy, good governance and development cannot happen. Visit the related web page
	The high costs of abandoning international law by Jeffrey D. Sachs Boston Globe, agencies   March 2017   Even before Donald Trump put America first, the Republican Party had largely walked away from international treaty law. Now Trump’s “America First” is likely to mean a further denigration of international law and process, to the further detriment of America’s national security and long-term interests.   Consider the following tale of our times. In 1973 the United States passed landmark legislation to protect people with disabilities, and this was followed by the pioneering Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. The ADA in turn inspired the member states of the United Nations to adopt the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.   President Barack Obama signed the CRPD in 2009, but the US Senate then refused to ratify it, voting 61 in favor, 38 against, falling five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for ratification. The United States thereby joined a handful of other countries that have signed but not ratified the treaty, including Libya, North Korea, and Uzbekistan. One-hundred-sixty other countries have ratified the treaty, including Canada, Japan, most European countries, and indeed most of the world.   The 38 Senators in opposition, all Republican, were persuaded by anti-UN activists that the Treaty “would surrender our nation’s sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats.” They also argued that since this country already had such protections in the ADA, joining the treaty was of no benefit to the United States. They feared that the treaty would somehow prevent home schooling and other parental rights.   To a remarkable extent, the Republican Party has thrown down the gauntlet on UN treaties: If the rest of the world agrees on something, even something modeled on US leadership, it is treated as suspect and even dangerous for the United States to join with those countries in a treaty, on the ostensible grounds that the treaty obligations would infringe US sovereignty.   The list of global agreements in which the United States refuses to participate is long and growing. Another notable case is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to prevent the abuse, exploitation, and capital punishment of children. This treaty was adopted by the UN in 1989 and came into force in 1990, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified it. The United States held out. Others kept joining.   Now every single UN member state except the United States has ratified the treaty, but US Senate Republicans still balk. Once again, US conservatives argue that the treaty would violate US sovereignty.   The United States has stayed out of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1991), the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty (1997), the Ottawa Land Mine Treaty (1997), and the International Criminal Court (1998), among many others. In each case, one argument is that treaty membership would limit US sovereignty.   Other reasons are given as well. The US Senate, again largely on the Republican side, objected to the UN Law of the Sea on the grounds that it would limit American companies from earning profits from deep-sea mining. It objected to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the grounds that protecting endangered species would threaten the private property rights of US farmers and ranchers, especially in the large landholdings in the west. Hard-line senators objected to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on the grounds that it was not verifiable, despite expert opinion to the contrary. The United States has stayed out of the land mine treaty not just because of Senate opposition but because the US military has continued to use land mines in the defense of South Korea.   The US failure to join the International Criminal Court is especially revealing. First, the United States voted against the ICC in the UN General Assembly, alongside Iraq, Libya, China, Yemen, and a few others, after unsuccessfully demanding the right as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto cases before the court. Then, in 2000, President Clinton signed the Rome Statute establishing the ICC but did not submit the statute for Senate ratification.   Next, George W. Bush formally notified the court that the US would not seek membership, expressing concern that US military personnel might be subjected to ICC charges. The US pursued a policy of signing more than 100 “bilateral immunity agreements” (BIAs) in which countries commit not to deliver US nationals to the ICC. Some countries faced cutoffs in US foreign aid when they balked at signing BIAs. In 2009, Obama declared that the US would participate in the ICC as an observer.   While strongly resisting ICC jurisdiction vis-a-vis US nationals, the US government has repeatedly and insistently called on the ICC to take judicial action against other countries’ leaders — for example, Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan.   The Senate’s aversion to any form of UN treaties is now so intense and pervasive that none have been ratified in the past decade and only one (on cybercrime) in the past 15 years. The list of unsigned or unratified treaties continues to grow, and the US increasingly stands almost alone in the world in remaining aloof from these UN agreements. Our disdain for globally shared and negotiated rules is clear for all the world to see.   The logic of treaty-making should be clear enough. In principle, treaties involve areas where nation states can potentially do serious harm to other nation states (pollution, arms races, arms trade, war) or where vital global protection of vulnerable populations (children, refugees) is at stake. Countries give up their sovereignty reciprocally.   On issues of interstate relations, each individual nation agrees to refrain from harmful actions against the other nations on the condition that the other nations agree to refrain from the same actions against the country in question. It is, of course, nothing more than the Golden Rule put into the framework of international law.   In general, there is no global “sheriff” to enforce the treaty, and opponents of these treaties routinely argue that they are indeed unenforceable. Yet there is a reason why the foes of these treaties work so hard to prevent their ratification by the US Senate. They believe, and rightly, that if the United States actually ratifies an agreement, it is more likely to follow through on its implementation.   To break a treaty, after all, is to incur a global reputation as a deal breaker and to risk not just a bad reputation but also a coalition of countries pressing for a return to compliance. In some cases, including violations of the rules of international trade under the World Trade Organization (WTO), the treaty provides for specific enforcement terms.   Moreover, the US government is typically very happy, even insistent, that other countries are living up to the terms of international agreements. I’ve noted the US support for various ICC proceedings. Similarly, the US routinely relies on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Likewise, the United States had aimed to further many of the specific objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity while not being a signatory to the agreement.   The Republican Party objection to international law has three underpinnings. The first is a historical image, essentially a founding myth, of America as untethered in its fate from the rest of the world. This attitude is expressed in a draft trade policy agenda released by the Trump administration: “Ever since the United States won its independence, it has been a basic principle of our country that American citizens are subject only to laws and regulations made by the US government – not rulings made by foreign governments or international bodies. This principle remains true today. Accordingly, the Trump administration will aggressively defend American sovereignty over matters of trade policy.”   The second is an implicit belief that America’s security and economic interests – in the sea, or the environment, or armaments – can all be achieved largely through American actions alone rather than the sum of the actions of all of the world. According to this view, the US has little interest in what other countries are doing.   The third is an overarching faith in “US primacy,” the idea that the US can protect its interest through its power alone, without the need to rely on international rules and international law.   These beliefs are wrong. From the start of our nation’s history, but especially today, America’s prosperity and security depend on a body of international law developed over the course of centuries that help to govern international trade, intellectual property, global health, international financial flows, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, environmental protection, and other areas.   Without international law, today’s global economy could not function, nor could the world successfully fight newly emerging diseases, control cross-border criminal activities, or preserve the peace among the major powers.   The United States needs to care profoundly what other countries do. We need to care about nuclear nonproliferation, pollution control, climate change, the movements of terrorists, the laundering of illicit funds, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, tax administration, financial stability, and the countless other areas governed by treaties and other forms of international law. Without international treaty agreements on such issues, there are no reliable and practical ways to promote the peaceful and beneficial behavior of the world’s 193 nations.   Nor could US military power alone begin to accomplish this task in the absence of international law. At the apex of US power after World War II, when the United States constituted roughly 30 percent of global output, American leaders recognized the urgent need for a greatly expanded body of international law to guide an increasingly complex and interdependent world. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the US led the way in promoting UN-based treaty law.   Yet more recently, with America’s relative power diminishing, the Republican Senate has turned its back on this indispensable means of protecting America’s vital interests and security, not to mention well-being and peace.   Rumors are swirling that the Trump administration will further turn America’s back on global law; neglect or abandon the recent agreements on climate change; unilaterally redraw the rules on trade; slash US support for the United Nations; break free of longstanding arms agreements; and more. Time will tell. Yet if America indeed goes in this direction, not only will our national security be profoundly damaged, so too will America’s decline in global leadership be confirmed and accelerated.   If the United States continues to turn inward, China will be more than happy to take up the slack. This year at Davos, Chinese President Xi Jinping offered a stirring defense of globalization and international responsibility. “When encountering difficulties,” he said, “we should not complain about ourselves, blame others, lose confidence, or run away from responsibilities. We should join hands and rise to the challenge. History is created by the brave. Let us boost confidence, take actions and march arm-in-arm toward a bright future.”   http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/trump-human-rights-freedom-state-department/520677/ http://slate.me/2pb58a9   February 28, 2017   Better World Campaign advises against proposed Cuts in U.S. Foreign Affairs Funding.   Better World Campaign President Peter Yeo issued the following statement today following reports that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget will propose significant cuts in foreign affairs funding, which could also impact U.S. support for the United Nations:   “Foreign affairs funding encompasses only 1 percent of the total federal budget, and yet the return on investment is vast for U.S. national security objectives.   “The proposed cuts outlined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget would bring foreign affairs funding to levels that pre-date the terrorist attacks of September 11 and threats from ISIS. Such reductions at a time of increased global challenges would severely jeopardize U.S. security, while reducing American leadership, influence, and strength. These funds also save millions of lives each year from preventable causes like malnutrition, malaria, and polio, while helping to address global threats such as violent extremism, pandemics, and climate change.   “Included in this account are U.S. funds for the United Nations, which amount to 0.1 percent of the federal budget. Working with our allies through the UN means that the U.S. can share the burden of solving global challenges. Although imperfect, no other organization has the reach and impact of the UN, from responding to the greatest refugee crisis since World War II to using diplomacy to prevent conflicts from breaking out, and supplying vaccines for 45 percent of the world’s children.   This viewpoint is shared by many; the Better World Campaign, along with 100 other organizations, sent a letter today to Congress urging continued U.S. engagement at the UN. The letter notes that Republicans and Democrats have long recognized the value of various UN activities, from peacekeeping to humanitarian response to development assistance.   “The U.S. will not achieve peace, security, and prosperity at home by withdrawing from the world. American interests are never served by going it alone. We encourage Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to speak out about the potential negative impacts such cuts in foreign affairs funding would have at home and abroad.”   http://bit.ly/2mcV7EF http://bit.ly/2mO5AWP http://bit.ly/2mBZklx http://www.cgdev.org/commitment-development-index-2017 http://tmsnrt.rs/2xcn5Zk http://www.cgdev.org/blog/commitment-development-index-2017-four-messages Visit the related web page
	View more stories