View previous stories
	A crisis of respect for human rights by Volker Turk United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights   23 Feb. 2026   UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council:   "Human rights are under a full-scale attack around the world. The rule of law is being outmuscled by the rule of force. And this assault is not coming from the shadows. Or by surprise. It is happening in plain sight – and often led by those who hold the greatest power.   Around the world, human rights are being pushed back deliberately, strategically, and sometimes proudly. The consequences are devastating. Written in the lives of people who suffer twice: first from violence, oppression, or exclusion – and then again from the world’s indifference.   When human rights fall, everything else tumbles. Peace. Development. Social cohesion. Trust. Solidarity.   This is precisely why the tools of the UN Human Rights Council – such as the Special Rapporteurs, Special Procedures, investigative mechanisms, and the Universal Periodic Review –are essential.   And it is precisely why – as we mark the Council’s 20th anniversary – we also recognize it is more important than ever to translate geopolitical engagement into a path towards strengthening human rights everywhere.   Tomorrow, I shall address the UN Security Council on the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. It is more than past time to end the bloodshed.   I began this month speaking to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People about blatant violations of human rights, human dignity, and international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.   The current trajectory is stark, clear and purposeful: the two-State solution is being stripped away in broad daylight. The international community cannot allow this to happen.   And a few days ago, I was at the African Union Summit where Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Sahel and other crises were front and centre.   We are living in a world where mass suffering is excused away … where humans are used as bargaining chips … where international law is treated as a mere inconvenience.   Conflicts are multiplying and impunity has become a contagion. That is not due to a lack of knowledge, tools or institutions. It is the result of political choices. This crisis of respect for human rights does not stand alone. It mirrors and magnifies every other global fracture.   Humanitarian needs are exploding while funding collapses. Inequalities are widening at staggering speed. Countries are drowning in debt and despair. Climate chaos is accelerating.   And technology – especially artificial intelligence – is increasingly being used in ways that suppress rights, deepen inequality, and expose marginalized people to new forms of discrimination both online and offline.   Across every front, those who are already vulnerable are being pushed further to the margins. And human rights defenders are among the first to be silenced when they try to warn us.   In this coordinated offensive, human rights are the first casualty. We see it in a tightening grip on civic space. Journalists and activists jailed. NGOs shut down. Women’s rights rolled back. Children’s rights ignored. Persons with disabilities excluded. Democracies eroding.   The right of peaceful assembly crushed – and I condemn once again the recent violent repression of protests in Iran.   Migrants harassed, arrested and expelled with total disregard for their human rights and their humanity. Refugees scapegoated. LGBTIQ+ communities vilified. Minorities and indigenous peoples targeted. Religious communities attacked. Online spaces poisoned by disinformation and hate – resulting in real-world harm.   Human rights are not a slogan for good times. They are a duty at all times. And so we must stand up for them – and even when it is difficult, inconvenient, or costly. That requires action on three urgent fronts.   First, we must defend our shared foundations – without compromise. The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the instruments of international human rights law are not a menu. Leaders cannot pick the parts they like and ignore the rest.   And human rights themselves are also not divisible. Economic rights, social rights, cultural rights, civil rights and political rights – these are inherent, universal, inalienable, and interdependent.   Human rights are not only what we defend – they are what lifts the world to a better place. When rights are upheld, people live more freely. Economies grow more fairly. Communities trust more deeply. And peace and stability take hold because dignity takes root.   Human rights are not an obstacle to progress – they are essential to progress. We have seen it time and again, all over the world. Where rights advance, conflict loses ground. Where justice strengthens, violent extremism weakens. Where equality expands, possibility explodes. Where freedom prevails, societies flourish.   So we must change course and let human dignity set the direction. By renewing our commitment to – and respect for – the rule of law at every level. By supporting the pivotal work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. By delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals. By accelerating climate action.   Human rights are not West or East, North or South. They are not a luxury – they are not negotiable. They are the foundation of a more peaceful and secure world".   Feb. 2026   United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk statement to the Human Rights Council (Extract):   "The use of force to resolve disputes between and within countries is becoming normalized. Inflammatory threats against sovereign nations are thrown about, with no regard to the fire they could ignite.   The laws of war are being brutally violated. Mass civilian suffering – from Sudan, to Gaza, to Ukraine, to Myanmar – is unfolding before our eyes.   The situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. Palestinians are still dying from Israeli fire, cold, hunger, and treatable diseases. The aid allowed in is not enough to meet the massive needs.   There are concerns over ethnic cleansing in both Gaza and the West Bank, where Israel is accelerating efforts to consolidate unlawful annexation.   Tomorrow marks four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four interminable and agonizing years. Civilian casualties have soared, and Russia’s systematic attacks on Ukraine’s energy and water infrastructure could amount to international crimes.   In Myanmar, five years after the military coup, the awful conflict is claiming even more civilian lives, and the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. The recent elections staged by the military have only deepened people’s despair.   Authorities in Iran have violently repressed mass protests with lethal force, killing thousands. Meanwhile, violence and tensions are resurging in South Sudan and Ethiopia.   In Sudan, there must be accountability for the war crimes and potential crimes against humanity committed by the Rapid Support Forces in El Fasher. Such atrocities must not be repeated in Kordofan or elsewhere. All those with influence need to act urgently to put an end to this destructive war.   Across too many violent conflicts today, health and aid workers, journalists are being targeted, in blatant violation of international law. These actions cannot be allowed to become the new normal.   States need to be persistent objectors to violations of the law – by pursuing accountability, and by clearly denouncing egregious crimes with consistency, and without exception.   Developments around the world point to a deeply worrying trend: domination and supremacy are making a comeback.   If we listen to the rhetoric of some leaders, what lurks behind it is a belief that they are above the law, and above the UN Charter.   They claim exceptional status, exceptional danger or exceptional moral judgement to pursue their own agenda at any cost. And why wouldn’t they try, when they are unlikely to face consequences?   They build and sustain systems that perpetuate inequalities within and between countries. Some weaponise their economic leverage. They spread disinformation to distract, silence and marginalize.   A tight clique of tech tycoons controls an outsize proportion of global information flows, distorting public debate, markets, and even governance systems.   Corporate and state interests ravage our environment, robbing the riches of the earth for their own gain.   But people are not watching all this from the sidelines. They are demanding their right to basic living conditions, to fair pay, to bodily autonomy, to self-determination, to be heard, to vote freely, and many other rights.   From Nepal to Madagascar, from Serbia to Peru and beyond, people are demanding equality and denouncing corruption. People are protesting war and injustice in places far from home, expressing solidarity and pressuring their governments to act.   They see human rights as a practical force for good – and they are right. Human rights are anathema to supremacy: they are a direct challenge to those who seek and cling to power. That is what makes human rights radical, and that is what gives them force.   Human rights didn’t magically appear with the Universal Declaration on 10 December 1948. People have been seeking freedom and equality long before these principles were codified in national or international agreements.   In the late 1700s, enslaved people in modern-day Haiti rose up against colonial rule, in the name of racial equality. The American and French revolutions challenged unaccountable authority.   The Abolitionist movement was a rejection of the Transatlantic slave trade – the most brutal system of subjugation. In the early 1900s, women joined together to demand the right to vote. The fight for gender equality continues.   After the bloodshed of two World Wars and the Holocaust, the UN Charter reasserted faith in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person.   The 20th century then ushered in a period of decolonization, which reaffirmed the right to self-determination. People mobilized to end racial segregation, for labour rights, and to protect the rights of LGBT people.   Mothers marched together to seek justice for their disappeared children, from Argentina to Sri Lanka to Syria. And young people raise their voices for climate justice.   Human rights are the thread that runs through all these movements. And we do not take their achievements for granted.   Tyranny will seize any chance and exploit any opening. We must keep standing up for human rights, in solidarity with each other.   When we come together, we wield more power than any autocrat or tech billionaire. The struggle for human rights can never be derailed by the whims of a handful of leaders with reactionary, supremacist agendas.   While some States are weakening the multilateral system, we need bolder and more joined-up responses. This means calling out violations of international law, regardless of the perpetrators. Too often, denouncing violations by one party is labelled as siding with the enemy. In reality, it is upholding universality, and the pursuit of justice for all.   We need to forge coalitions to champion what unites us, and uphold equality, dignity, and justice for all. Our future depends on our joint commitment to defend every person’s rights, every time, everywhere".   http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statements/2026-02-23/secretary-generals-remarks-the-human-rights-council-delivered http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-opens-human-rights-council-peoples-pursuit http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-sudan-let-aid-and-keep-weapons-out http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-occupied-palestinian-territory-absence http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/02/high-commissioner-turk-afghanistan-must-end-persecution-women-and http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/letter-to-un-human-rights-council-members-on-atrocity-prevention-priorities-at-the-councils-61st-session/ Visit the related web page
	Human Rights Watch World Report 2026 by Philippe Bolopion Executive Director   The global human rights system is in peril. Under relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms.   To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.   To be fair, the downward spiral predated Trump’s re-election. The democratic wave that began over 50 years ago has given way to what scholars term a “democratic recession.” Democracy is now back to 1985 levels according to some metrics, with 72 percent of the world’s population now living under autocracy. Russia and China are less free today than 20 years ago. And so is the United States.   Of course, democracy is not a panacea for human rights violations; the US and other longtime democracies have their own histories of colonial crimes, racism, abusive justice systems, and wartime atrocities. More recently, authoritarian leaders have exploited public mistrust and anger to win elections and then dismantled the very institutions that brought them to power.   Democratic institutions are crucial to represent the will of the people and keep power in check. It’s no surprise that whenever democracy is undermined, rights are too, as evident in recent years in India, Turkiye, the Philippines, El Salvador, and Hungary.   In this context, 2025 may be seen as a tipping point. In just 12 months, the Trump administration has carried out a broad assault on key pillars of US democracy and the global rules-based order, which the US, despite inconsistencies, was, with other states, instrumental in helping to establish.   In short order, Trump’s second-term administration has undermined trust in the sanctity of elections, reduced government accountability, gutted food assistance and healthcare subsidies, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, obstructed access to abortion care, undermined remedies for racial harm, terminated programs mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, punished free speech, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate political opponents, the media, law firms, universities, civil society, and even comedians.   Claiming a risk of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and leaning on racist tropes to cast entire populations as unwelcome in the US, the Trump administration has embraced policies and rhetoric that align with white nationalist ideology.   Immigrants and asylum seekers have been subjected to inhumane conditions and degrading treatment; 32 died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2025, and as of mid-January 2026, an additional 4 have died.   Masked immigration enforcement agents have targeted people of color, using excessive force, terrorizing communities, wrongfully arresting scores of citizens, and, most recently, unjustifiably killing two people in Minneapolis, whose deaths Human Rights Watch has documented.   The US president of course has the authority to tighten US borders and enforce stricter immigration policies. The administration is not, however, entitled to deny legal process to asylum seekers, mistreat undocumented migrants, or unlawfully discriminate. In a well-functioning democracy, no electoral mandate should supersede domestic legislation, constitutional protections, or international human rights law. Trump’s team has repeatedly bypassed these guardrails.   The violations have not stopped at the border. The Trump administration used a 1798 law to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where they were tortured and sexually abused. Its blatantly unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific extrajudicially killed more than 120 people whom Trump claims were drug traffickers.   After the US attacked Venezuela and apprehended its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, Trump claimed the US would “run” the country and control its vast oil reserves. Despite paying lip service to human rights concerns under Maduro at the United Nations, Trump has worked with the same repressive apparatus to further US interests. Many Western allies have chosen to stay silent about these lawless moves, perhaps fearing erratic tariffs and blowback to their alliances.   Trump’s foreign policy has upended the foundations of the rules-based order that seeks to advance democracy and human rights, even if imperfectly.   Trump has boasted that he doesn’t “need international law” as a constraint, only his “own morality.” His administration has politicized the US State Department’s annual human rights report, stepped away from the global prohibition on antipersonnel landmines, voiced support for rewriting international rules on asylum, and skipped the UN’s Universal Periodic Review of the US’ human rights record.   His administration withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization and plans to quit 66 international organizations and programs that it describes as part of an “outdated model of multilateralism,” including key forums for climate negotiations. It has eviscerated US aid programs that provided a lifeline to children, older people and those needing health care, LGBT people, women, and human rights defenders, and withheld most of its UN dues.   Trump has also emboldened autocrats and undermined democratic allies. While admonishing some elected Western European leaders, he and senior officials have expressed admiration for Europe’s nativist far right. He has favored autocrats such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, while continuing decades of US support to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.   His administration has unjustifiably imposed sanctions to punish respected Palestinian human rights organizations, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutor and many of its judges, a UN special rapporteur, and for several months, a Brazilian Supreme Court judge and his wife.   The institutional response in the US to Trump’s power grabs has been shockingly muted. Much of Congress, controlled by his own party, has not challenged his supercharged expansion of executive power. The leaders of the US’ most powerful technology companies have made significant donations and sought to placate the president. Some big law firms and prestigious universities have made deals rather than assert their independence, and some media organizations seem afraid to attract the president’s ire.   Has the US switched sides on the human rights playing field? While US engagement with human rights institutions has always been selective, China and Russia have long pursued an illiberal agenda. They stand much to gain from a US government that now expresses open hostility to universal rights. China and Russia remain strategic rivals of the US, but all three countries are now led by leaders who share open disdain for norms and institutions that could constrain their power.   Together, they wield considerable economic, military, and diplomatic power. If they were to consistently act as allies of convenience to erode global rules, they could threaten the entire system. Already, a loose international network of countries such as North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Myanmar, Cuba, and Belarus work in concert with Russia and China. These leaders share very little ideologically but align in undermining human rights and promoting a regressive international agenda. In word and in practice, the US government is now helping them in this endeavor.   The US’ weakening of multilateral institutions also dealt a serious blow to global efforts to prevent or stop grave international crimes. The “never again” movement, born from the horrors of the Holocaust and reignited by the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, spurred the UN General Assembly to embrace the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005. Meant to guide international intervention to prevent and stop atrocities in tandem with efforts to prosecute and punish serious crimes, R2P made a real difference in places like the Central African Republic and Kenya.   Today, R2P is rarely invoked and the ICC is under siege. In addition to Trump’s far-reaching sanctions, in December 2025 a Moscow court sentenced the ICC prosecutor and eight of its judges to prison terms in absentia. Moreover, despite being ICC fugitives, in 2025, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was welcomed by Donald Trump in Alaska, and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Hungary, an ICC member state at the time, at Orban’s invitation.   Twenty years ago, the US government and civil society were instrumental in galvanizing a response to mass atrocities in Darfur. Sudan is burning again, but this time under Trump, with relative impunity. Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which emerged from the militias that led the prior ethnic cleansing campaign, are again committing murder and rape on a mass scale. A growing body of evidence indicates that the UAE, a longtime US ally that recently made multi-billion-dollar deals with Trump, is providing the RSF with military support.   In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Israeli armed forces have committed acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, killing over 70,000 people since the October 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel and displacing the vast majority of Gaza’s population. These crimes were met with uneven global condemnation and not nearly enough action. Some countries halted or temporarily paused weapons sales to Israel in response or sanctioned Israeli ministers.   Trump, however, continued a long-standing US policy of almost unconditional support to Israel, even as the International Court of Justice is weighing allegations of genocide and has issued binding orders under the Genocide Convention to protect Palestinians’ rights.   Trump announced in February an alarming US plan to transform Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” free of Palestinians, which would be tantamount to ethnic cleansing. As implementation of the 20-point Trump peace plan has stalled, the administration has further normalized the dispossession of Palestinians through its failure to publicly protest Israel’s regular killing of those approaching the “yellow line” that now divides Gaza, its ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes, and unlawful restrictions on humanitarian aid.   In Ukraine, Trump’s peace efforts have consistently downplayed Russia’s responsibility for serious violations. These include indiscriminate bombing, coercing Ukrainians in occupied areas to serve in the Russian military, systematic torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war, the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, and the use of quadcopter drones to hunt and kill civilians.   Rather than applying meaningful pressure on Putin to end these crimes, Trump publicly berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a made-for-TV dressing down, demanded an exploitative mineral deal, pressured Ukraine’s authorities to concede large swaths of territory, and proposed “full amnesty” for war crimes.   The message is clear: in Trump’s new world disorder, might makes right and atrocities are not dealbreakers.   With the US undermining the global human rights system, who will rise in its defense? Despite rhetorical flourishes, many governments treat rights and the rule of law as a hindrance, rather than a benefit, to security and economic growth. The European Union, Canada, and Australia appear to hold back out of fear of antagonizing the US and China. Others are weakened by the way political parties displaying illiberal tendencies have skewed their domestic politics and discourse away from a rights-respecting approach.   In many parts of Western Europe, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, many voters gladly accept limits on the rights of “others,” whether immigrants, women, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBT people, or other marginalized communities. But as history shows, would-be autocrats never stop at “others.”   To fill this vacuum, there is an urgent need for a new global alliance to support international human rights within a rules-based order. Individually, these countries may be easily overwhelmed by the global influence of the US and China. But together, they could become a powerful political force and substantial economic bloc. The obvious participants in such a cross-regional alliance would be established democracies with significant economic and geopolitical clout, including, but not limited to, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and the UK, as well as the EU as an institution and many of its member states.   It’s critical to look beyond the usual suspects. The multilateral order was built brick by brick by states from all regions over decades. Countries such as Costa Rica, Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Vanuatu have played important roles on specific human rights initiatives in key international forums.   Creative diplomats from smaller states such as Liechtenstein and The Gambia have been instrumental in advancing international justice. And it should be recognized that support for human rights has never come just from powerful democracies or countries with the strongest domestic rights records.   In theory, India, long considered the world’s largest democracy, could be a key member of this global alliance, considering its prior role in opposing apartheid in South Africa and defending minority rights in Tibet and Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, under a Narendra Modi administration that actively promotes Hindu majoritarianism, India can hardly hold itself out as a human rights champion. As the Indian authorities oppress political opponents, target minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, censor independent voices, ban books, and commit atrocities in counterinsurgency operations, it is unlikely, for now, to see value in bolstering a system that might one day be used against it.   However, India has also been targeted by the Trump administration for its purchase of Russian oil and regards China, with which it has clashed over their shared border, as a strategic competitor. The Indian government, which has historically chosen “nonaligned” status, might find that cleaning up its human rights record to join with other democracies could help protect it from the aggressive great powers.   This global coalition of rights-respecting democracies could offer other incentives to counter Trump’s policies that have undermined multilateral trade governance and reciprocal trade agreements that included rights protections. Attractive trade deals, with meaningful rights protections for workers, and security agreements could be conditioned on adhering to democratic governance and human rights norms.   Democracy already comes with benefits. While autocracies have generally fostered conflict, economic stagnation, or kleptocracy, as evidenced in multiple academic studies, including the work of the Nobel Prize-winning economist Daron Acemoglu, democratic institutions reliably yield economic growth.   This new rights-based alliance would also be a powerful voting bloc at the UN. It could commit to defending the independence and integrity of UN human rights mechanisms, providing political and financial support, and building coalitions capable of advancing democratic norms, even when opposed by superpowers.   Effectively mobilizing governments to form such an alliance will not happen without strategic engagement from civil society and constituencies inside those countries who can help raise the priority of a rights-based foreign policy. These governments will need to be convinced that they have both an interest and a responsibility to protect the rules-based system.   Projects of this nature are bubbling up. Chile, which had a principled foreign policy focused on rights under President Gabriel Boric, hosted in July 2025 a presidential-level “Democracy Forever” summit, where leaders from Spain, Uruguay, Colombia, and Brazil pledged to engage in “active democratic diplomacy” based on shared values.   The Hague Group, led by Malaysia, South Africa, and Colombia, formed in January 2025 in “defense of international law” and in solidarity with Palestinians. Over 70 countries from all regions signed a joint statement defending multilateralism at the UN. Earlier, in 2017, former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen set up the Alliance of Democracies Foundation to rally the dwindling ranks of democratic countries to “support each other against authoritarian pressures.”   Whatever its precise contours, an alliance of rights-respecting democracies would offer a hopeful counterpoint to the authoritarian trope of China’s and Russia’s leaders standing alongside North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, observing military hardware in a parade in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in September. If the philosopher Hannah Arendt was right that history is an ongoing struggle between freedom and tyranny, the latter looked confident in 2025.   Yet, even in the worst of times, the idea of freedom and human rights is enduring. People power remains an engine for change. In the US, “No Kings” marches have drawn millions, protesters in Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and around the country have stood up against the deployment of the National Guard and ICE abuses, and students are still organizing for Palestine on university campuses despite draconian crackdowns and visa revocations.   Buoyed by popular resistance, South Korean parliamentarians impeached their president to prevent him from grabbing power through martial law. Grassroots aid efforts by Sudan’s emergency response rooms, Hong Kong’s fire relief, Sri Lanka’s cyclone relief community kitchens, and Ukrainian mutual aid and solidarity collectives represent the best of this trend.   In 2025, Gen Z protests against corruption, inadequate public services, and poor governance in Nepal, Indonesia, and Morocco brought to the forefront the need for governments to listen to their youth and tackle corruption and inequality. But as the difficulties of restoring rights in Bangladesh after years under an authoritarian government illustrates, gains won through public mobilization can easily be lost unless democratic participation and free expression remain unassailable.   In this more hostile world, civil society is more critical than ever. It’s also increasingly endangered, particularly in an environment where funding is scarce. In 2025, Human Rights Watch was labeled “undesirable” and banned from operating in Russia. For partners in Egypt, Hong Kong, and India, these tactics are all too familiar.   Restrictions on civil society and protest have become more commonplace in Europe, including the UK and France. And now, for the first time, many worry about risks associated with their operational presence in the US, where the Open Society Foundations, a major donor, have already been threatened, and the administration is preparing a list of “domestic terrorists” under overbroad guidance that could be interpreted to include the work of many progressive groups.   Breaking the authoritarian wave and standing up for human rights is a generational challenge. In 2026, it will play out most acutely in the US, with far-reaching consequences for the rest of the world. Fighting back will require a determined, strategic, and coordinated reaction from voters, civil society, multilateral institutions, and rights-respecting governments around the globe.   http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026 Visit the related web page
	View more stories