A State’s Responsibility in an Epidemic: Human Rights and the Coronavirus Outbreak

Guest Contributors Bodhisattwa Majumder and Devashish Giri are penultimate year students at Maharashtra Law University Mumbai. Their interests include Constitutional Law, Public International law and Maritime law. Any discussion related to the paper can be made via mail at bodhisattwa@mnlumumbai.edu.in or Giridevashish15@gmail.com

The outbreak of Coronavirus or COVID-19 (“Coronavirus”) from Wuhan, China (“People’s Republic of China “) has engulfed as many as twenty four countries across the globe with a medical emergency and has claimed more than 3,800 lives as of now. 

This strain of the virus is graver than the other types of Coronaviruses as it has never been identified in humans before. Coronavirus belongs to the zoonotic group of viruses which can affect a human being with a range of health ailments ranging from the common cold to serious problems such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV). The World Health Organization and other countries including the US have declared it as a “Global Public Health Emergency”.  In order to restrict the transmission of the virus, however, China has taken various restrictive measures which have caused serious human rights violations including but not limited to arbitrary censorships, lockdowns, quarantines, police suppression, and mass detentions.

In outbreaks of viruses with communicable properties, response time in communicating information and alerting the public and world about the dangers of the virus is of the essence. Even a delay of a month can have a huge impact; in the absence of proper information, crowded public places act as the hub for transmission. 

Early on in the outbreak of Coronavirus, citizens of China were deprived of their freedom of expression and free speech. The Wuhan province was under strict observation by the Chinese government, and any information related to the outbreak was termed as mere “rumours” and prohibited from being shared across any social media platform. There were numerous reported instances of police suppression when doctors, nurses and other associated personnel working in the frontlines faced strict penal measures by the police on grounds of spreading the information related to the virus.

 It was only due to a brave whistleblower, Chinese Dr. Li Wenliang, who risked his own safety and livelihood to spread news of the outbreak in Wuhan to his alumni peers via WeChat, that the world was able to learn about this dangerous phenomenon that China had tried to keep under wraps. He sent his message on December 30, and China alerted the World Health Organization (WHO) about its outbreak on December 31. Since January 1, researchers have learned that China has been censoring WeChat accounts for words related to the Cornonavirus, blocking certain combinations or anything negative towards President Xi Jinping.  Furthermore, China placed the entire affected province under lockdown without any prior notice, which deprived the residents any chance to ensure the availability of basic amenities of life such as food and medicine. Such a measure has affected vulnerable populations of society, including those with disabilities, illness, and the elderly and deprived them of their essential needs. These are direct violations to their right to health. There has been a mass-quarantine process of millions of people for the cause of limiting the spread from the city of Wuhan. Any offering measure by any section of society be it, Lawyers, Activists or Artists, has been prohibited, censored, threatened and harassed by the organs of the government. Despite having strict regulations against discrimination regarding communicable diseases, the machinery has apparently failed.

Coronavirus has not limited itself to Chinese province and other South-East Asian states have been affected, although not every state has adopted measures which violate human rights. Amidst the Chaos, the approach of Singapore has been a silver lining, which has won praises for its benevolence and informative approach rather than an authoritarian one. Singapore’s approach has been direct and effective to reduce panic, rumours and conspiracy theories, aligning itself correctly with the statement of the Prime Minister which was posted on social media in three languages, “Fear can do more harm than the virus itself. The speech alone was proven effective as the following weekend witnessed a reduction in crowds in the city-state. The Singaporean approach included prevention, contact tracing, quarantine and access to information. Singapore’s official website of the Ministry of Communications and Information provided useful and practical advisories on topics such as ‘When to See a Doctor’, ‘What happens to suspect cases’ and ‘How to practice good personal hygiene’. The approach of Singapore prioritized the welfare and safety of citizens over political stability and economic costs, which won praise across the world. Singapore was among the most affected regions of Asia (Orange alert). Still, it chose to inform its citizens rather than bury the situation. The constant live news coverage, transparency about developments, and inclusion of health workers in planning has proved to be effective in controlling the situation and reducing  panic among citizens. 

Public International Law dictates that regardless of a health emergency or an epidemic, the measures taken to affect human rights should be legal, necessary, reasonable and proportional. Every measure must be recorded in evidence and there should be strict adherence to the procedure prescribed. An undemocratic regime leaves no scope for a consequence to the state for failures in terms of epidemic response and as a result, there is no accountability from the state. The people residing in affected areas are shunned out without any scope for the expression of dissent or discontent or even a cry for help from the international community. Human rights cannot be allowed to be violated under the garb of a health emergency and every nation should take a lesson from the incident of the Coronavirus outbreak. The priority of taking measures to restrict the outbreak lies in equal pedestal with the significance of following due process without depriving the people of their human rights. The international community needs to take a stand, and every response from a government during the outbreak of an epidemic or a pandemic must be within the four corners of human rights.

A Fresh Start in EU Migration Policy: Re-examining the Dublin Regulation

Guest Contributor Ali Cain is an M.A. Candidate in the European History, Politics and Society Program at Columbia University. She is additionally the Program Coordinator for the Cardozo Law Institute in Holocaust and Human Rights (CLIHHR). Her research interests include populism, refugee rights and transatlantic relations.

During her 2019 candidacy for European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen proposed a New Pact on Migration and Asylum to “relaunch the Dublin reform of asylum rules.” Ms. von der Leyen is correct: Europe’s asylum system needs a fresh start. The Dublin Regulation III mandates that asylum seekers register upon arrival in the first European Union (EU) member state he or she enters. At the refugee crisis’ peak in 2015, 1.3 million asylum seekers and migrants arrived in Europe. Many traveled through the Mediterranean Sea, designating Italy and Greece as first ports of entry and, therefore, responsible for processing asylum claims. The influx of asylum seekers has led to immense strains on local governments, inciting animosity against refugees and creating a significant backlog of asylum decisions. 

According to Politico, there is a backlog of 90,000 asylum cases in Greece alone. The Greek government recently released a plan to create a “floating wall” to block migration routes on the Aegean Sea and will soon begin construction of closed detention centers that will limit the movement of asylum seekers. At a press conference on February 27, the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis explicitly told those who do not qualify for international protection to “not come to Greece”, and warned that they will remain stuck on the islands until they are returned home. Although Greece’s treatment of refugees is appalling, their actions and rhetoric towards refugees demonstrates the depths of desperation which border states are being driven to due to EU inaction. To complicate issues further, the EU received its highest numbers of asylum applications since 2015; the European Asylum Support Office reported that 714,2000 applications were received in 2019. Future migration crises are inevitable, especially given climate change as an increasingly central driver of forced displacement. Commission President von der Leyen must prioritize the reform of the Dublin Regulation to create a cohesive asylum process in Europe. 

The Dublin Convention was created in 1997 in response to the Schengen Zone’s development. Under the Convention and its succeeding regulations, geographic arrival points determine state responsibility for refugees. The number of refugees already present in a state are not taken into consideration when determining relocation destinations or places of stay during the processing of asylum applications. Although the Dublin Framework includes rights for refugees that are already solidified under international law, including family unification and speedy asylum decisions, those rights are not enforced equally among EU member states. Following the 2015 refugee crisis, the EU began to discuss reforming the Dublin system to include burden-sharing measures and increased human rights protections. The European Commission proposed a reallocation quota determined by each country’s population and gross domestic product (GDP). The European Parliament suggested amendments to the Commission’s proposal also to include family reunification and prior residence/study in relocation decisions. The European Council must decide whether to implement burden-sharing provisions, but has been divided on the best way to actually relocate refugees since December 2018. The Visegrád countries – Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia – have refused to accept refugees or abide by quotas.

As a result of Council gridlock, member states have relied heavily on third-party agreements to curb migration. These agreements have been successful in achieving the EU’s overall goal of curbing migration but pose threats to human rights and are not sustainable in the long-term. Although the EU’s 2016 deal with Turkey led to a 97% decrease in migration from Turkey to Greece, 3RP reported that over 64% of the 3.6 million refugees living in Turkey are living in poverty. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced plans for the “voluntary” resettlement of refugees in a “peace zone” in Northern Syria. Pushing refugees to return to Syria would violate non-refoulement standards under international law, which mandates that a host country cannot return asylum seekers to a country where they would be in danger or would be persecuted. Furthermore, President Erdogan announced on February 27, 2020 that Turkish authorities will not prohibit Syrian refugees from leaving Turkey to go to Europe, as Turkey is facing an influx of Syrian refugees from Idlib due to recent attacks by the Assad government and Russia. This recent announcement demonstrates the precise issue with third-party agreements: they provide short term reprive for host countries but kick the can of dealing with refugees down the road at refugees’ expense.  

The EU-Turkey deal also has implications for those already in Europe. For example, thousands of refugees are stranded on the Greek island of Lesbos as the EU-Turkey agreement prohibits their arrival on mainland Greece. Most recently, protests against inhumane living conditions broke out at the Moria refugee camp, where 20,000 refugees are cramped into facilities built to house 3,000 individuals. These conditions, which are common in many refugee camps throughout Europe, infringe on basic human rights secured under international conventions, including the 1951 Refugee Convention.  The EU’s 2015 Emergency Trust Fund for Africa has decreased economic factors that encourage migration from Africa by providing over 50,000 jobs and improving living standards. However, as explained in a recent Oxfam report, European investment in specific countries and regions is tied to migration levels stemming from each origin country. Addressing underlying societal issues like poverty and inequality, and political issues like corruption is not tied to aid. The EU also increasingly has depended upon the Libyan Coast Guard for search and rescue (SAR) missions, which intercept boats and return passengers to Libya. Those sent back to Libya face torture and trafficking in detention centers run by both the government and militias. Forced returns to Libya also violates the principle of non-refoulement.

A report released by the European Council on Foreign Relations argues that member states may now be more open to asylum relocations and burden sharing. In July 2019, fourteen states signed a solidarity mechanism, pledging to relocate migrants across the EU. In September 2019, Italy’s staunchly anti-migrant interior minister Matteo Salvini was recently replaced by migration specialist Luciana Lamorgese in September 2019. Italy’s migration policies have already begun to change as private charity’s boats can now dock at Italian ports. Additionally, a recent European Council on Foreign Relations survey found that a majority of EU citizens no longer see migration as the most pressing issue of concern. Instead, survey respondents reported “health, housing unemployment, and living costs as standout issues.” Although it is easy to get caught up in the pessimism of current EU affairs, all European countries can agree that the current system under the Dublin Regulation is not working. A November 2019 EU Council Presidency report acknowledges the importance of the EU speaking in one voice about migration and concludes that “the more members states have the perception that EU legislation is meeting their concrete needs and taking into account their administrative realities, the more likely it is that the implementation will be successful.” The new Commission’s expressed interest in reforming the CEAS and the designation of €949 million ($1,039,120,000) to the EU’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund presents an opportunity for reform. The EU has also pledged 30.8 billion ($41,608,700,000) for immigration and border control issues in the 2021-2027 budget.  Furthermore, the conclusion of Brexit provides a pivotal moment for the remaining 27 member states to reestablish the EU’s joint efforts and cohesiveness.

Migration is one of the most complicated and emotionally-driven issues to nation-states, as it heightens various concerns regarding economic and cultural security. The EU’s current approach in relying on third-party agreements, increasing general border control, and remaining gridlocked over how to better distribute refugees throughout Europe is a significant problem. Border states, especially Greece, and larger financially stable states like Germany, cannot be solely responsible for asylum seekers. The European Commission must push states to reopen discussions and negotiations on reforming the Dublin Regulation.

Truth in Sentencing: Mass Incarceration in the United States

By Reem Katrib, Staff Writer for RightsViews 

With the mark of the 10th year anniversary of Michelle Alexander’s powerful book The New Jim Crow at the end of January, our current celebration of  Black History Month, and an approaching presidential election, it is important to bring to the forefront the continuing systemic racism in the American criminal justice system. The recent eighth presidential debate, argued the evening of February 7, 2020, in New Hampshire, brought forth this topic with the spotlight on presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg when asked why a black resident in South Bend, Indiana was four times more likely to be arrested for the possession of marijuana than a white resident after his appointment to office. While Buttigieg had initially avoided the questions posed by ABC News’ Live News Anchor Linsey Davis, he then conceded, claiming that the arrests made were made as a result of the gang violence that was prevalent in the black community of South Bend, causing the deaths of many black youths. This logic and rhetoric, however, plays into narratives which contribute to the disproportionate criminalization of black Americans, despite Buttigieg’s recognition of systemic racism in the criminal justice system on the national level. This then begs two questions; primarily, what policies on mass incarceration impact persons of color today? And what positions have the democratic presidential candidates taken on such a pervasive issue? 

A History of Mass Incarceration in the United States

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified on December 6, 1865 and deems slavery unconstitutional, except as a punishment for crime.  While the ratification of the 13th amendment was meant to abolish slavery, a mythology of black criminality continued to be perpetuated through a white nationalist narrative that took alternative, but just as harmful, forms to target black Americans. Movies such as “The Birth of a Nation” (1915),which was responsible for the rise of the Klu Klux Klan, committed to a narrative of black criminality that many white people wanted to tell. White people wanted to continue to benefit from the “loophole” in the 13th amendment; more so, the movie depicted them, and specifically members of the Klu Klux Klan, as “valiant saviours of a post-war South ravaged by Northern carpetbaggers and immoral freed blacks.”  

Slavery in the 19th century and continuing discrimination, violations and abuse, and segregation policies such as those of the Jim Crow era have led to generational trauma and the dispersion of black communities from the south. These human rights violations have not ceased with time but only have changed in nature; systemic oppression against people of color has continued through carefully nuanced political policies that only propagate these violations as systems of protection. The mass incarceration of people of color, which has fed into the prison industrial complex, reasserts systems of racial discrimination and the policing of those marginalized. While not slavery by name, the mass incarceration of people of color  acts as slavery in practice.

 Although the United States has the highest rate of incarceration at 25% per cent, it only constitutes 5% of the world population. This is a massive statistic, yet, as Alessandro Di Giorgi articulates, “the sheer extension of the correctional population in the United States does not convey the race and class dimensions of the US penal state—the result of a four-decade-long carceral experiment devised from the outset as a political strategy to restructure racial and class domination in the aftermath of the radical social movements of the 1960s.”

The Civil Rights movements that began in the late 1940s were countered by efforts to criminalize black leaders such as Fred Hampton, Assata Shakur, and Angela Davis.  In the 1960s, President Nixon emphasized “law and order” and synonymized crime and race through a “war on drugs” in which drug dependency and addiction were regarded as a crime, a rhetorical “war” that disproportionately targeted poor, urban neighborhoods occupied by primarily people of color. Through this syntax of subtle and thinly veiled racial appeal, matched with backlash towards the Civil Rights Movement, the Nixon campaign deployed the “Southern Strategy,”  which aimed at gaining the votes of lower income white people who had previously voted with the democratic party. This strategy utilized the war on drugs as a top-down approach to gain the support of the white people who had felt isolated and alienated with the dismantling of the Jim Crow laws on racial segregation. 

The war on drugs was only strengthened in later years, especially with the election of Ronald Raegan in 1982. Increase in poverty as well as the widespread dealing of crack, which was easier to access than powdered cocaine, meant an increase in incarceration rates of low income people of color as well. Significantly, crack and cocaine are identical in molecular composition; however, crack had become associated with blackness and thus a worse form than powdered cocaine, which was used just as frequently by high-income white people as a “party drug.” More so, crack was cheaper to produce and therefore circulated more easily among lower income communities as opposed to cocaine which was mostly circulated and in the possession of middle and upper classes, and more specifically, white people. A study conducted by the ACLU found that “in 1986, before the enactment of the federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher.”

“What Raegan eventually does is takes the problem of economic inequality, of hyper-segregation in America’s cities, and the problem of drug abuse and criminalizes all of that in the form of the war on drugs,” argues Ava Duvernay in her documentary 13th.  

This narrative was only furthered by President Bill Clinton who proposed several policies encouraging policing and the death penalty for violent crimes. During his administration, the three strikes rule for prisoners as well as mandatory minimums were created. This meant that cases moved from under the jurisdiction of judges to that of prosecutors; notably, 95% of elected prosecutors throughout the U.S. are white. “Truth in sentencing,” which is a law enacted in order to reduce the likelihood of early release from imprisonment,  has often been questioned as a result of this change in how individuals charged with crimes get prosecuted and sentenced. Significantly, 97% of those locked up, for example, have plea bargains and do not even go through trials. This was significant to the Clinton administration as he claimed a more hardline approach with regards to criminal justice in order to gain support and win the presidential elections. 

Under Bill Clinton, sixty new capital offense punishments were also added to the law, and the 1994 Federal Crime Bill led to the massive expansion of the prison system through increase in funding and personnel such as police officers. This bill then also meant the expansion of the prison industrial complex, and hence the benefit of certain corporations as well as the political progression of Clinton through similar means to Raegan and Nixon. 

As seen in the figure above, extracted from The Sentencing Project: Fact Sheet: “Trends in U.S. Corrections,” state expenditure on corrections has dramatically increased over time. This attests to the use of mass incarceration as a political strategy that perpetuates racial discrimination as politicians have increasingly utilized a hardline criminal justice approach in order to gain public support. This is especially evident with the election of Clinton and the expansion of the prison system which included increase in funding.  

It also asserts the influence of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) on policy bills. ALEC is a lobbyist group that advocates for limited governance, free markets, and federalism. Importantly, ALEC claims the membership of many organizations and legislators. Previous member, Correction Corporations of America (CCA), has benefited as the leader of private prisons as a result of such influence over federal spending. The CCA has had a role in shaping crime policy across the country, including the increase in criminalization of communities of people of color. More so, there is now a move towards the privatization of probation and parole by the American Bail Coalition, a system in which people could be incarcerated within their own communities.  

In prison, incarcerated individuals experience a process of immediate sensory deprivation and dehumanization, followed by disenfranchisement that essentially removes their rights as citizens, such as the right to vote or get a job as the right to vote excludes previously incarcerated people. The racial caste then seen during the Jim Crow era has been redesigned. Not only has there been incessant criminalization and disenfranchisement of black people, but convict leasing has also risen as a new form of slavery. Convict leasing, which started as early as 1844 in Louisiana, means the leasing of the labor of those incarcerated, often without compensation and in poor conditions, in order to increase profit in a certain sector.  The legal inheritances from times of slavery in the United States have become the foundations for the modern prison industrial complex, in which black men make up 40.2 per cent of the prison population while only making up approximately 6.5 percent of the U.S. population. 

The above chart is from The Sentencing Project: Fact Sheet: “Trends in U.S. Corrections”

Ta-Nehisi Coates deems reparations to the black community a question of citizenship. When the history of mass incarceration is looked at with the recognition that members of colored communities have consistently been treated as second class citizens, this is undeniable. Coates makes the claim that slavery and past plundering cannot be separated from today’s context of mass incarceration and the “logic of enslavement respects no such borders.” This enslavement which overarches over private and public spheres presses  the question: how should the U.S. go about institutional reform when politicians and corporations have weaponized racial discrimination in veiled lines to gain political prowess? Could an unofficial form of truth-telling and truth-seeking place the pressure necessary for institutional reform and justice? Questions of employing transitional justice mechanisms such as truth commissions and reparations in a consolidated democracy then suggest a new approach to these mechanisms to encourage institutional reform. Political strategies have begun to shift and so we must ask “do we feel comfortable with people taking a lead on a conversation in a moment where it feels right politically?”

What the Democratic Candidates Say

With that in mind, as well as the events of the recent presidential debate in New Hampshire, it’s important to note the political stances of the democratic presidential candidates to ask of the intentions and the applicability of criminal justice policies and policies on mass incarceration. The Marshall Project outlines the stances of these candidates. 

Significant to this discourse is the recognition that all democratic presidential candidates oppose the death penalty. Bernie Sanders and Peter Buttigieg would like to eliminate mandatory minimums while Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden would prefer reducing them. All candidates would like to legalize marijuana while Biden would vote on decriminalizing it instead. Likewise, Sanders believes that those incarcerated should have the right to vote while Biden, Buttigieg, and Warren believe that those incarcerated should only have the right to vote when they have left prison.

 Other topics to consider include the reform of the bail system, use of clemency, and use of private prisons at a federal level. With these stances noted, one must contextualize and recognize how such policies would affect the communities of those most implicated as a result of the systemic racism in place. One must also question why there hasn’t been more discourse on reparations for the years of weaponized racial discrimination that have been enacted through the prison industrial complex and the mass incarceration of people of color.

Non-Violence in Communal War in Central Nigeria

By James Courtright, Staff Writer for RightsViews

On January 30th Dr. Jana Krause came to speak with students and faculty at Columbia’s School for International and Public Affairs about her new book, “Resilient Communities: Non-Violence and Civilian Agency in Communal War.” Her work centers on communal conflict – non-state armed conflict between identity groups – in Plateau state in Nigeria and Maluku province in Indonesia. In both places the violence tended to be simplistically referred to as Christian against Muslim, but upon further investigation she found it was deeply rooted in local political and economic dynamics and narratives. After explaining how communal violence was organized, she then delved into neighborhoods in Nigeria and Indonesia where violence did not occur, analyzing how the choices of civilians and their collective efforts to prevent fighting saved the lives of hundreds of people.

Conflict in Jos

When she first visited Jos, Nigeria in 2010, Dr. Krause had to pass through multiple checkpoints along the road from the capital Abuja before entering a city where half-destroyed houses lined the streets and every major traffic junction was accompanied by a heavy military presence. As she started comparing her interviews with journalistic accounts, data sets, and human rights reports she realized that conflict in the city of Jos and rural Plateau State claimed more than 7,000 lives between 2001 and 2010. This violence, she concluded, was not sporadic clashes – it was war.

Dr. Jana Krause. Photo from her website.

Dr. Krause builds on the work of political scientist Stathis Kalyvas, whose work has advanced the idea that what civilians do in conflict matters. Unlike the journalistic shorthand of “neighbors killing neighbors,” she explained, violence is usually perpetrated by militias formed in surrounding neighborhoods. These militias would mobilize after hearing rumors that their perceived enemies were arming themselves, and then travel to where they believed clashes were occurring or where they had planned to attack. When they arrived in other communities, some residents there would collaborate with militias to identify “the enemy” based on their identity or hyper local grievances. Thus, communal violence results from rumor, threat assessment, mobilization and information sharing, grievances linked to previous violence, and local conflicts.

After delving into these dynamics, she began asking if residents knew an area that was vulnerable and religiously and socio-economically mixed, but where violence did not occur. She was pointed to Dadin Kowa, a community that sits in the southern suburbs of Jos. As she spent more time with residents of Dadin Kowa, she came to better understand how they managed to maintain an uneasy and tense peace while thousands of people were being killed or forced to flee their homes in surrounding neighborhoods.

How to avoid or forestall violence?

While many community leaders across Jos strove to avoid violence during this painful decade, Dadin Kowa’s leaders were arguably the most successful. One of the main reasons for this, Dr. Krause argued, was that both Christian and Muslim community leaders and everyday residents painstakingly created a broader identity as ‘being a resident of Dadin Kowa’, overcoming the fractious Berom Christian and Muslim Jasawa political agendas. From early on there was a tacit agreement, and later a more formal one, between religious leaders that they would preach to their respective congregations to avoid violence. People were still politically polarized, but when it came to violence, leaders constantly stressed a deeper fealty to their shared humanity and their neighborhood of Dadin Kowa.

Women’s groups also played a key role. At one point, tensions at the market became so serious that women began to travel out of the neighborhood to buy their vegetables and staples from their own religious group, dividing the community further. As tension at the market became a serious hindrance in their lives, women across the religious divide began meeting and sharing their stories, fears, and aspirations. As Dr. Krause writes in her book these meetings “fostered determination that their neighborhood would not be devastated by clashes.”

However, creating a unifying identity was not enough in and of itself. Dr Krause pointed out how civilians consolidated social control of the neighborhood. Women’s groups and other informants would pass information about suspicious activities or rumors to community leaders, who at times used open threats and even violence against people in the community to maintain order.

Young men in the community were told that under no circumstances were they allowed to go and fight with groups outside the community, and at the first sign of trouble they should return home. A clear communications network was built by community leaders so whenever trouble appeared on the horizon leaders on both sides of the religious divide could call and coordinate their actions to calm tensions. Mixed youth patrol groups were even created to guard the neighborhood and coordinate with the military and police.

In addition to dense networks built within Dadin Kowa, to deter attacks leaders in the community engaged in extensive negotiations and coordination with leaders in neighboring communities as well as the police and military. They even paid thinly veiled bribes to facilitate good relations and regular police patrols. For example, some of the women’s groups cooked lunch for the soldiers in order to maintain good relations. Both Christian and Muslim community leaders from Dadin Kowa went to mosques and churches in neighboring suburbs of Jos and publicly presented their agreement not to fight in Dadin Kowa.

In at least one case violence was averted by the actions of a single individual. In January 2010 when two external Christian militias threatened Dadin Kowa a community leader identified as Timothy in Dr. Krause’s book went out and single handedly negotiated with the militias, telling them that they would not be allowed into the neighborhood and no one would collaborate with them. He slowed their advance until they could hear the gunshots of the military nearby, and the militia turned around without harming anyone in Dadin Kowa. Timothy had lived through the Nigerian civil war in the 1960s and understood the dynamics of how violence happened and how and when to intervene.

In some cases, peace was only maintained with the credible threat of violence. One of Dr.  Krause’s interviewees, a Christian resident of a nearby neighborhood identified as Abraham, revealed that not only was the agreement not to fight in Dadin Kowa well known outside the neighborhood, it was also understood that the agreement would be enforced with violence. “If the boys from outside want to overcome them, then the Dadin Kowa boys will fight them,” Dr. Krause quotes Abraham saying in her book. “If you go there to fight, they will kill you. That’s the agreement.”

However, Dr. Krause stressed that Dadin Kowa was not an oasis of harmony during these episodes of violence. The community was tense as people fleeing violence sought refuge and leaders struggled to exert control over rebellious youth. Tensions within women’s groups over rumors and unfair burdens of labor also created problems. In some cases, as in the January 2010 episode mentioned previously, people in Dadin Kowa agreed it was the fateful intervention of a single person which averted catastrophe.

What can Dadin Kowa teach the world?

After her presentation Dr. Krause was asked about the implications of her work for practitioners. She responded by saying that we need to complicate the “islands of peace” idea that non-violence is isolated from outside forces. Instead, she pointed out, Dadin Kowa was deeply enmeshed in the conflict environment and political dynamics. The leaders of Dadin Kowa who were most effective at averting violence were those who understood exactly how the violence was organized because they had seen it before. Before foreign organizations rush in to “sensitize” people about conflict dynamics, she continued, it is important to recognize that foreigners arriving and starting programs has its own political and economic implications for the community and its neighbors.

While her findings from Nigeria and Indonesia shared some basic similarities, Dr. Krause stressed that knowledge of local contexts should be foremost in the minds of outsiders seeking to work on these issues. She concluded her talk by pointing out that in both Dadin Kowa and Indonesia non-violence is less connected to pacifist attitudes but a desire to survive and partly results from direct threats of violence and coercion against those most likely to engage in killings. Acknowledging this uncomfortable reality is essential in designing local and international peace building efforts.

Is Tolerance of Human Rights Abuses out of Fashion? A Cautionary Tale for Retail Giants

By Kelly Dudine, staff writer at RightsViews

In a Bangladeshi garment factory, a woman works seven days a week, morning to night, and still cannot afford to feed and clothe her children at home. In India, young women working in cotton mills face appalling work conditions, low pay, violence and exploitation.

This is the cost of fast fashion, poorly regulated labor markets, and ultimately, the tolerance of human rights abuses by the business community. 

However, shifts in public opinion, consumer behavior, and investment strategies are testing business-as-usual more than ever before. The bare minimum is no longer enough – the rules are changing and the business community will need to make drastic, meaningful changes in order to adapt.

The recent filing of bankruptcy by Forever 21 is a strong cautionary tale to all retail giants. The company has been in troubled waters for years. It expanded too quickly and carelessly, and faced lawsuits and accusations of worker exploitation. Despite the adaptation of a social responsibility policy, which outlined sustainability goals including worker health and safety, the company made no improvement in human rights standings over the years. In the annual Ethical Fashion Report, which looks at criteria including living wages, forced labor, child labor, and worker empowerment initiatives, Forever 21’s overall score continued to decline, dropping from a D+ in 2017 to a D- in 2019. For a company whose consumers are largely young women, these allegations are particularly damaging, contributing to a loss of consumer interest and falling foot traffic.

Forever 21 is not alone in these challenges, and the entire fashion industry should take note. Millennials are increasingly buying with their values and Generation Z views consumption as a matter of ethical concern. According to eMarketer, 74 percent of millennial respondents expect brands to take public stands on important social values. To increase consumer markets and customer loyalty, brands should be implementing social initiatives that support and empower their workers in all sectors. 

Money managers, too, are increasingly investing based on ethics and sustainability, using the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria to screen potential investments. These criteria look at issues that were not traditionally included in financial analysis, like a corporation’s treatment of workers, but are now understood to have significant financial relevance. According to Forbes, the use of ESG criteria and efforts to achieve corporate sustainability are associated with better financial results.

According to the latest report from the US SIF Foundation, investors used ESG criteria in portfolio selection equaling $11.6 trillion in US-domiciled assets in early 2018, which is a 44 percent increase from just two years earlier. The report also shows that assets managed with human rights criteria were one of the leading priorities at $2.2 trillion. With more money managers moving their investments to socially responsible businesses, corporations with human rights abuse allegations could have a problem securing capital in the near future.

 The business community can also expect increased pressure from international human rights bodies. In June 2019, the International Labor Organization adopted a new Convention to combat violence and harassment in the workplace. The Convention sets new international labor standards and “reminds member States that they have a responsibility to promote a general environment of zero tolerance” for workplace violence. The Convention is legally binding for member States, which will no doubt increase scrutiny of the fashion industry, which is plagued with accusations of gender-based violence against female workers. Retailers can expect increased responsibilities of due diligence and prevention, as well as aggressive action and redress when abuses occur.

The simple fact is that there is nothing superficial or whimsical about the fashion industry – it is a massive empire, built in large part due to an intentional race to the bottom, and at great expense to the workers that it so desperately depends on. The industry was estimated to be worth $2.4 trillion in 2017, and growing, making it the world’s seventh-largest economy when ranked alongside the gross domestic products (GDP) of individual countries, according to a report by McKinsey and Company. However, the Asian Wage Floor organization estimates that for an item of clothing, only between 0.5-3 percent of the cost goes to the worker who made it. The industry thrives by dealing in poverty wages. This is especially alarming when considering the fashion industry employs millions of people, many of which are women and young girls located in countries where human rights abuses are not uncommon, and where women are particularly socially and economically vulnerable. 

How can an industry worth trillions still be paying poverty wages to the workers that make it all possible? Whether intentionally or not, international corporations are part of a complex system that keeps millions, especially women and young girls, trapped in a cycle of poverty. 

With its financial capital, reach into underserved labor markets, and direct consumer interaction, the global fashion industry could be an incredible driver of social good and equality, able to spur great economic growth through employment opportunities and vocational trainings in communities that need it most. There are, of course, corporations that are doing just that, and they are thriving among millennial consumers. Brands like H&M and Lululemon Athletica, which have scores of B+ and A-, respectively, in the 2019 Ethical Fashion Report, remain fashion favorites. Currently, however, the bare minimum is the norm in this industry. 

Statements and codes of conduct kept neatly on website pages are not enough. To make real change, corporations must collaborate and work together to disrupt the status quo and drastically overhaul the way global supply chains function. 

The first place to start: increase wages of all workers. No one should be earning less than a living wage in such a massive industry. Invest in worker empowerment programs, skill building, and education for employees. Invest time and resources in ensuring that companies comply with The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Human rights abuses are predictable and preventable; businesses ought to do the work now to avoid future risk. What may feel like a short-term financial hit allows investment in a healthier, more productive market that corporations will benefit from in the years ahead. As McKinsey and Company states, “brands must find the courage to self-disrupt their own identity and the sources of their old success.” To satisfy changes in public and investor behavior, and win new generations of consumers, brands must enact real, human rights driven changes from the executive suite all the way to the factory floor.

Failing to Protect Human Rights: The United States and the Asylum Cooperation Agreements

By: Jacquelyn Sieck, RightsViews Staff Writer 

In 2019, the United States forced countries in the Northern Triangle – a region composed of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras – to sign Asylum Cooperation Agreements by withholding over $500 Million in aid. These threats of aid suspension echo Cold War-Era proxy war interventions in Central America, during which the United States blocked the Guatemalan government from receiving “much-needed” development loans from the World Bank because it did not approve of the Arévalo Government. During these proxy wars, the United States offered “support for a coup in Guatemala, brutal government forces in El Salvador, and right-wing rebels based in Honduras known as the Contras.” This U.S. support led to gross human rights abuses, and demonstrated to the region that the United States is willing to act on threats and suspend aid to governments in need in order to further its foreign policy objectives. This sentiment and realization forced the Northern Triangle to respond swiftly to the aid suspension by signing the formal Agreements, after which over $143 Million in aid was released to the countries. 

The Asylum Cooperation Agreements were each signed bilaterally between the United States and the respective Northern Triangle country. The Agreements allow for the transfer of asylum seekers who arrive in the United States without having applied for asylum in at least one third country. Most alarming about the Asylum Cooperation Agreements, however, are that they designate Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala as “safe.” This is in spite of the fact that in 2018, El Salvador had 51 murders per 100,000 people, and Honduras had 40. Further, the U.S. Department of State’s yearly Country Reports on Human Rights Practices have recognized human rights violations, violence, and impunity in the countries of the Northern Triangle. The United States’ 2017 National Security Strategy explicitly states: “transnational criminal organizations—including gangs and cartels— perpetuate violence and corruption, and threaten the stability of Central American states including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.” These government reports show that the United States has, in fact, recognized the violence in the region; the United States government is attempting to argue these countries are safe while having produced numerous documents which argue the exact opposite.

This recognition of violence in the region can be found in the numbers of asylum grants and applications from the region in recent years. In August of Fiscal Year 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service published statistics that 72% of the migrants apprehended at the U.S. Southern border were from the Northern Triangle countries. Another report, authored by Nadwa Mossad in the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, published statistics that in FY 2016, 27.1% of all asylum grants were from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. This number was met by 31.9% of all asylum grants being from the Northern Triangle in FY 2017, and 19% of all asylum grants in FY 2018. In order to be granted asylum, the applicant must meet the Immigration and Nationality Act definition of a refugee – have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion –  and be inside the United States. 

There has been a large pushback to the newly signed Agreements from civilians and legislators in all countries involved. Guatemalan media began recognizing that their Congress had not passed the Agreement and El Salvadoran Elected Representatives talked about how the Agreement contradicted the laws on migration and foreigners. Moreover, the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, discussed how El Salvador did not have the capacity to maintain a humane environment for asylum seekers. This lack of capacity is shown by statistics the government of El Salvador published, which stated they only processed 87 refugee applications and zero political asylum applications between June 12, 2014, and June 12, 2019. Guatemala received 262 asylum requests in all of 2018 and only has four asylum officers to manage them. In the United States, civil society organizations sued the Trump Administration, but the U.S. Supreme Court stated the policy could be enforced while lower courts continue their adjudications. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented and stated that the Agreements  “upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.”

The effects of the aid suspension have already been experienced by the region, as projects remain at risk because the State Department “reportedly reprogrammed $404 million (82%) of the $490 million of FY2018 assistance Northern Triangle.” The Congressional Research Service has said that this lost aid “could jeopardize recent improvements in security conditions in the Northern Triangle,” noting that “homicide rates are reportedly increasing once again in some neighborhoods in Honduras from which USAID withdrew due to a lack of funds.” 

The risks, however, have already begun for asylum seekers: the first Honduran asylum seeker arrived in Guatemala on November 22, 2019. The asylum seeker was reportedly offered asylum in Guatemala, a job, and a place to live, but decided to return to Honduras. Less than two weeks later, two more Honduran asylum seekers and the first El Salvadoran asylum seekers were transferred to Guatemala, and Alejandra Mena, the spokeswoman for the Guatemalan migration institute “did not specify whether the migrants from Honduras and El Salvador would seek asylum in Guatemala or return to their countries.” The uncertainty as to whether the migrants will return to the country from which they fled shows the dangers of the Agreements in providing protection to asylum seekers.

These Agreements show a continued U.S. influence in Central America, and put the safety of Asylum seekers at risk by forcing the Northern Triangle governments, all of whom have a mass exodus of citizens each year who seek asylum in the United States, to sign Asylum Cooperation Agreements and begin accepting transfers of asylum seekers. The transfer of tens of thousands of asylum seekers to these Northern Triangle countries will place an extreme burden on underdeveloped asylum systems that have only handled hundreds of cases in the past few years. With over 59,000 migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border awaiting U.S. immigration hearings, the failure to protect asylum seekers remains evident. As of February 4, 2020 the United States has transferred 378 Honduran and El Salvadoran asylum seekers to Guatemala, the majority of whom are women and children. In order to protect human rights, the United States must stop the transfer of asylum seekers to dangerous countries which have underdeveloped asylum systems and cannot offer protection to those the transfers which arrive.

Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations…But What About Justice? An Interview with Nana-Jo Ndow

RightsView contributor James Courtright recently sat down with Nana-Jo Ndow to discuss Gambia’s transitional justice process. For 22 years, Yahya Jammeh ruled The Gambia through widespread corruption, repression of media, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. He was voted out of office in December of 2016, and fled after a political impasse at the end of January 2017. At the beginning of this year the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) began hearing testimony in The Gambia from victims and perpetrators of Jammeh’s regime. 

The interview has been edited for clarity.

Nana-Jo Ndow, daughter of disappeared and murdered Gambian buisnessman Saul Ndow. ©Jason Florio

Can you introduce yourself?

My name is Nana-Jo Ndow and to put it simply I like to say I’m from Ghana – Gambia – UK. My Dad was a business man, he went wherever there was opportunity. 

What brought you to human rights work?

I had a father who was very into human rights and politics, so we’d always have debates and conversations. I volunteered with Amnesty International about 12 years ago in London. I thought I wanted to be a doctor, but at Amnesty I realized I didn’t necessarily want to treat people, I wanted to understand the root causes of why these things are happening. 

Regarding transitional justice in The Gambia, which is what I’m working on now, that was sparked by what happened to my father (Saul Ndow). He was a fierce critic of Yahya Jammeh, the former president of The Gambia. In 2013 he was forcibly disappeared on the orders of the former president. At first, I thought my father was just being kept somewhere, so I was trying to find his whereabouts and trying to get him freed. It really had a devastating impact on me physiologically, physically, and also in the family. I don’t want anyone else to go through that. If I can help one person not go through that, I would have done what I’m meant to do on this earth. 

You’ve never heard anything from the Gambian government?

The government kept silent, that’s the whole thing with enforced disappearances. It’s the silence. It’s another way of torturing people because you’re not sure if you’re moving in the right direction. Am I making that person be tortured more if I speak up? Am I putting myself in danger? There’s this constant fear, this constant guilt. We never spoke up, but we reached out various individuals, groups and institutions including the UN, the working group on enforced and involuntary disappearances, the Senegalese, the UK, the Red Cross, and Amnesty International. We were frantic but also relentless. I knew who to reach out to because of my work for Amnesty, but even knowing who to turn to, it was still very … I wouldn’t even say frustrating, it was debilitating. Now imagine all these others who are not connected to the internet or are completely isolated, what they go through in their heads, how powerless they feel. 

I want to take a few steps back. Can you talk a little about your experiences in Latin America?

I moved to Argentina in 2001 because I liked the idea of moving to South America. In Argentina I really got to understand more about what Argentinians went through with the dictatorship. When I found out about my father it was easier for me to speak about it with my Argentinian friends because to them this was not a new concept. They probably knew someone who knew someone whose father’s sister’s uncle’s father’s uncles’ brothers had been forcibly disappeared. The military there tried to impose some kind of amnesty so no one would be held accountable, but Argentinians got up in arms. You see the Madres de Plaza de Mayo saying they want answers, and they still haven’t given up. It was very inspiring to see how they pushed back.

Do you think The Gambia can learn anything from Argentina?

The Gambia is different in many ways. It’s in West Africa and it’s a tiny country, while Argentina is a Latin American country and is very big. That being said, it was bizarre [for the organizers of the Gambian truth commission] to go to South Africa and Sierra Leone, because the context was completely different. In South Africa they had apartheid, in Sierra Leone it was a civil war. In The Gambia you had a repressive state. It started with a junta, which it what you had in Argentina. In both countries there was a small group of people terrorizing society and completely ripping families apart, so for me there’s so much to learn from Argentina.

How does the Gambian Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) fit into this?

In The Gambia it’s the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission – but reconciliation between whom and whom? Is this meant to replace justice? What really bothers me is this narrative that if you’re seeking justice, which means holding someone accountable for their actions, it’s portrayed like you’re asking for revenge. This is not what we’re asking for. In Argentina people insisted accountability was their right, and Argentinians pushing back set a precedent for other cases in Latin America. When you say let ‘bygones be bygones’, you’re giving license for others to do the same thing. Some of those who were involved in my father’s case had been mercenaries in Liberia and were given amnesty. Then they moved to Gambia. What does that say? In Liberia they also went through a truth commission, but up to this day not a single person has been prosecuted.

Are you worried about that in the Gambia?

I’m very worried about that. Some people in government are trying to portray victims who are asking for justice as being unreasonable or as being selfish by saying we’re stopping society from moving on. But you don’t just sweep this under the carpet. Maybe I can forgive you, but you still have to be held accountable. The truth commission is to have a historical record of the human rights violations that happened in the last 22 years. But for me somehow it looks like it’s a way for society to accept it. The burden is always placed on the victims and I think that’s why I’m so inspired by the Argentinians.

What is reconciliation for you?

To begin with, it’s having people know your story. But it’s also listening to what victims say they want. I feel like so much emphasis in The Gambia has been placed on those who’ve committed crimes. The focus has been on the perpetrators, and again the victims are forgotten. The government cannot come in and say “this is how we’re going to reconcile.” They must listen to those who’s suggestions they don’t necessarily agree with or like. As a government they’re serving the country, they have to listen to people, it has to be an inclusive process. The Gambia is such a small country, someone’s brother’s uncle’s cousin killed that person. There could be tensions, but you have to make it clear that with reconciliation you also have to be accountable for your actions. It’s very important for future generations. 

What are you working on now?

I’m the founder and the executive director of the African Network against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANEKED). We’re a small organization led by victims of the former regime. My cousin went through the emails back when we were trying to find my dad in 2013, and she said it made her realize that ANEKED actually started back then. That for me was like wow, everything we learned back then, we brought it with us when we officially launched. 

We have quite a number of protects, one of which is the TRRC Digest, which is a repository of the truth-seeking process in The Gambia. People need to know what’s being said at the commission, but many don’t have time to sit in front of the screen all day, so we’re summarizing as accurately as possible. We then have it translated into the four main local languages, Fula, Jola, Wolof, and Mandinka, and we air it on the radio. We’ve received great feedback. Information is so powerful, people need to know what witness said happened in their community and in other communities. It’s easy with so many things coming out every day to lose track, but with the Digest we can go back and say this one person killed x number of people, what are we going to do about it? It falls into the four principles of dealing with the past: right to know, right to justice, right to reparations, and guarantee of non-recurrence. We need to have this out there so no one can come along and decide to re-write history. 

We also got funding to do a memorialization project. We want to have a place where there will be a memorial center where you would have the stories of witnesses and objects. What inspired us is the Argentinians with the Museo Sitio de Memoria ESMA where you have this former detention center where they show you what people went through and give you names of missing people. I think this should be out there for people to visit and for schools to take students because it’s part of the history. 

Also, again the name says it all, it’s a network for young activists. It’s very easy to feel alone doing this work, to feel isolated. You need to know there are other activists out there and share good practices and tactics. But safely! 

I’m also involved in ongoing litigation. I filed against the government of The Gambia for the failure to conduct proper judicial investigations and prosecute those who were accountable. My case, well that of my fathers, is very clear. Names were out there before the truth commission. Why don’t they conduct a judiciary investigation? There’s already a lot of evidence out there and we’ve given that evidence to the government. So, it’s sort of trying to make them understand there needs to be accountability, and hoping this sets a precedent for other people. 

How do you stay centered and healthy doing this difficult work?

I want this to be out there because there’s so much stigma about it – I see a therapist. Therapy has really allowed me to put boundaries, to know when I’m reaching my limit because I hear stories that are so heavy and make me go all over what I went through. Sometimes I have to pull back because I’m no use if I burn out or have a breakdown. Therapy allows me to really share how I feel. It’s difficult, and I have to constantly re-center myself, but I was given tools through therapy. I’ve been very blessed to be surrounded by great people. My husband is amazing and has been incredibly supportive. My cousin I work with is amazing. I have another cousin who is fantastic, I can share my feelings and my frustrations with them. My mother has also been trying to be very supportive of the work ANEKED does. In this work I’ve come across a lot of people who have complexly lost their ability to empathize. I constantly remind myself you have to have empathy. It’s OK to be irritated, but you have to let it go. Don’t hold onto that feeling, its unhealthy. It doesn’t serve you. 

The Legacies of ‘Never Again’: Genocide Prevention Activism

By: Jalileh Garcia, Staff Writer for Rights Views

Every year in the month of December, the Historical Dialogues, Justice, and Memory Network holds a conference where scholars and practitioners share their scholarship and experiences in the field of historical dialogue. 

This year’s theme was “Prevention Activism: Advancing Historical Dialogue in Post-Conflict Settings.” The event’s theme sought to understand how to address and redress the violent past in order to prevent ethnic and political conflicts in the future. The conference took place  December 12-14 at Columbia University. 

From left to right: Andrea Zemskov-Zuege, Ilya Nuzov, Mark Wolfgram, Baskara Wardaya, and Elisenda Calvet Martinez. Photo by Jalileh Garcia

On Saturday, December 14, Mark Wolfgram from the University of Ottawa opened the event “Uses of History in Genocide Prevention II” by stating that the panelists would speak about their experiences and expertise in different countries and on distinct thematic issues that addressed how to ensure non-recurrence of genocides and mass atrocities through prevention activism, or the effort to record, acknowledge, address and redress the violent past. 

Ilya Nuzov, the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Desk Director at the International Federation of Human Rights, started the panel. He focused on the normative aspects of preventative activism, particularly on truth as a tool of prevention. The right to truth is linked to the right to effective remedy, which is codified in Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), among other international agreements. Nuzov shared that truth has two aspects: the individual and collective. Individually, it is the right of each person to know what happened to them or their loved ones in past genocides that have affected them. Collectively, it is the right of society to know what happened in their violent past.

“While punishment is used as the primary measure to ensure non-recurrence of genocide and other mass atrocities, the fulfillment of the right to truth also carries a preventative potential,” explained Nuzov. By learning about the causes and events of past crimes, states recognize their responsibility in said crimes, while also acknowledging particular social identity groups that suffered as a result. 

Nuzov then presented the question “What is the legal regime for prevention?.” He argued that the legal basis for the fulfillment of the right to truth lies in the international legal obligations of states to prevent mass atrocity crimes. This duty has been present in various human rights conventions such as the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 1 of the Convention states that “[t]he Contracting Parties confirm that genocide… is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” While the duty to prevent is mentioned, the extent of the duty is really only expounded in the current draft of the Crimes Against Humanity Convention, he explained. 

Mass atrocities that are left in impunity have the ability of manifesting into future violence, as there has been no accountability for grave crimes, victims are not redressed for their suffering, and there is no consensus on the truth of the events that occurred. As such, addressing grave human rights violations is vital to ensure non-recurrence. Truth, in this sense, could function as a tool to prevent future atrocities. 

Andrea Zemskov-Zuege, consultant with the organizations Change of Perspective and Culture for Peace, presented on prevention activism in Burma, now called Myanmar. Providing a brief historical context of the situation, she highlighted the present massive state-induced media campaign and violence against Rohingya Muslims perpetrated by the Myanmar security forces with the support of armed Rakhine Buddhist individuals. Due to the rise of violence towards the Rohingya, many have fled to neighboring Bangladesh. There has also been the emergence of a Muslim resistance movement, previously known as Harakah al-Yaqin, which is now called the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. It is commanded on the ground by Rohingya who use their guerilla training to organize attacks. 

Because the two identities – the Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims – are increasingly isolated, Zuege found that the best approach to bridge these communities together would be through narrative. The exchange of experiences through narrative hopes to create empathy, while reducing estrangement and achieving advocacy for minorities by each of the groups. She emphasized the importance of choice in this approach, as it means people are actively willing to learn and share. 

Narrative approaches can take various forms. In Myanmar, there were two projects executed by several organizations. The organizations began by training youth from Rakhine and Rohingya communities to facilitate storytelling sessions among their respective communities based on biographical experiences. Here, facilitators would also introduce basic conflict transformation themes. After coordinating storytelling sessions in their communities, the Rakhine and Rohingya youth facilitators then came together and shared their experiences with each other in efforts to improve their community work. Zuege mentioned how sharing biographical experiences is a central feature of the program in Myanmar, as it a low-key method for the exchange of experiences because it is not confrontational and allows both the Rakhine and Rohingya people to get to know each other. 

Baskara Wardaya, lecturer of History at Sanata Dharma University, spoke next of the role that everyone has to play in remembering the aftermath of the 1965 mass violence in Indonesia. He provided a brief historical context of the situation, sharing that mass killings in Indonesia led to the deaths of more than 500,000 people in efforts to eradicate “communist threats.” The Communist Party, known as the PKI, had gained much traction in Indonesia. As such, the military had become wary of the party’s rise in power and the possibility of a rebellion in the country. The event which marked history was the murder of six senior army generals and one lieutenant in October 1965, which was subsequently blamed on the PKI. Shortly after, the killings against against any person suspected of being communist or having ties to the communist movement began. Eventually, Suharto, the General of the Army, took power over the presidency in 1967. As such, Suharto came to control all of the narratives of what happened in 1965, concealing the truth about the events that had occurred for the next 31 years, shared Wardaya. 

Organizations hoping to expose the horrors of the 1965 mass killings arose as a response to the government’s efforts to hide the truth. Sekber 65 is one of these organizations. It was established in 2005 and is comprised of civil society members. Sekber 65 raises awareness of the crimes committed by the Indonesian army in 1965 through truth-telling. Members publish magazines, books, or have artistic performances that convey true stories of the suffering that took place. 

Explaining why Sekber 65 takes a non-judicial approach, Wardaya described that “dealing with the 1965 issue by taking the case to court would be ineffective, which is why we started doing these activities.” In fact, through the civil society initiatives, the government has slowly shown more signs of cooperation towards taking on the issue.  

Elisenda Calvet Martinez, Assistant Professor of International Law at Universidad de Barcelona, was the last to speak. Her presentation focused on combating corruption and impunity as a guarantee of non-repetition in Guatemala. She looked specifically at the role that the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) played in the country.

Elisenda Calvet Martinez. Photo by Jalileh Garcia

Beginning in 1960 and lasting until 1996, Guatemala found itself in a civil war fought between the government military forces and leftist rebel groups.  Martinez states that in this internal armed conflict more than 200,000 civilians were murdered. Sources indicated that most civilian casualties were indigenous people, and that the State of Guatemala perpetrated a genocide against its Mayan inhabitants. Yet, according to Martinez, the violence after conflict was even higher than during the armed conflict. As such, the unsustainable violence in Guatemala led to the creation of the CICIG, which was formalized through an agreement between the UN and the State of Guatemala. 

The CICIG’s mandate centered on the dismantling of illegal security groups and clandestine security structures, which were created during the armed conflict. They provided special recommendations for institutional reform, worked on more than 100 cases of high impact, and identified 60 criminal structures. By trying the impunity of the past, the CICIG sought to hold accountable the people responsible for abuses during the internal armed conflict, many of whom continue to retain much of the country’s political and financial power to this day. 

As a whole, the speakers made the audience speculate on how to deal with the past as a way to move forward in the future. Overall, the panelists provided the audience with diverse viewpoints and shared different methods for genocide or mass atrocity prevention ranging from using the normative legal regime to narratives, civil society organizations, or UN commissions against impunity. 

It was particularly interesting to see how Zuege grappled with these questions of truth. She believed that in conflict narratives, individuals with different social identities and experiences would have ideas of the truth that do not always contend. As such, Group A and Group B would believe differently about an issue depending on how they felt. Yet, these narratives begin to line up when one puts them together. Meanwhile, the CICIG determines culpability of individuals involved in illegal and clandestine security forces which reinforces guilt in a case, and not conciliation. While the effectiveness of all of these methods are to be determined or hard to assess, they provide hope that individuals can improve their current or past country situations. 

While the panelists’ perspectives and experiences varied in context, all of the speakers grappled with how to record, acknowledge, address and redress the violent past in order to counter violent and hateful realities. In this way, we see how the human rights regime allows for flexibility in how to address genocide or mass atrocities and ensure their non-recurrence.

An Unending Crisis: India’s Amendment to the Citizenship Act

Guest Contributor Anant Sangal is currently an undergraduate student of B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) at the National Law University, Delhi, India. He is deeply interested in the issues of constitutional law and human rights law

The sledgehammer of the Indian State is powerful and surreptitious. It is powerful because its impact is realized and is then hard to undo and is surreptitious, because it often acts in the ambit of the Indian Constitution. Most recently, it was cracked hard on the illegal Muslim immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. In the first-half of December 2019, the Parliament of India passed a legislation, which sought to amend (“Amendment”, hereinafter), the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 to provide for the citizenship to the people belonging to certain specified communities from India’s three neighboring countries, that is from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. 

The new proviso to Section 2 (1) (b) of the 1955 Act reads, “Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act;.

A plain reading of the proviso to the Section will establish this wide and clear that the sole community excluded from the realm of protection of the newly amended statute is the Muslim community. As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and in his speech while tabling the Amendment in the lower-house of the Parliament, the Union Minister of Home Affairs suggested that the Amendment seeks to provide a home to the religious persecuted minorities in either of these three theocratic nations, where Islam is the State religion. Therefore, the primary assumption is that people belonging to only these six communities are persecuted on the basis of their religion and hence, India must act as their homely abode.

The ostensible exclusion of the Muslim community is based on the assumption that they are not persecuted at all in those nation-states, where Islam is the state religion. However, this is far from being true. The Ahmediya and the Shia sects of the Muslim community have faced severe persecution at the hands of the Sunni Muslims in Pakistan and the Rohingyas of Myanmar continue to be widely persecuted by the Buddhists in Myanmar. The 2013 United Nations report states that the Rohingya Muslims are the most persecuted in the world. Therefore, the assumption and the justification the legislation provides for excluding the Muslim community is false and does not have a very strong foundation either. Rather, the new basis of granting citizenship to the illegal immigrants is based on a majoritarian conception. 

The Amendment projects that the true civilizational abode of the Hindus is only India. Therefore, it appears to be yet another step towards solidifying the argument that we hear for long about how the English have England, the Americans have America, but the Hindus do not have Hindustan (India). The Amendment finally seeks to legitimize a majoritarian and an exclusionary idea of citizenship, where a deliberate attempt is made to exclude only the immigrants belonging to the Muslim community from acquiring the Indian citizenship. The real dangers of legalizing something of this kind is while we do not have an established theocratic state but the selective targeting of a selected community helps us inch closer to an undeclared theocratic state, where rights for minorities remain at the whims of the majority.

That said, the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution were torn between choosing the just mode for granting citizenship to the people. The country was reeling under the aftermath of a bloody and a gruesome partition, where the Indian subcontinent was divided into two halves on the communal lines. In that setting, the drafters of the Indian Constitution, the great visionaries they were, decided to side with jus soli as the basis for the grant of citizenship rather than jus sanguinis. Jus soli provides for citizenship on the basis of the place of birth of an individual i.e. the soil, on which such person is born. Jus sanguinis is a much more elite and a racist conception of citizenship, where the citizenship is determined by an individual’s descent or ethnicity of one or both parents.

Operating under the scar of partition, it was surely very progressive to choose jus soli as the basis of citizenship and include the same in Part II of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was in furtherance of this conception itself. However, the successive Amendments to the Act dragged the basis of citizenship from jus soli to jus sanguinis, with religion acquiring a substantive stake in this shift. In 2004, the Act was amended to provide that even if a person was born on the Indian soil but had even one parent as an illegal migrant at the time of her birth, such person will not qualify for the grant of Indian citizenship. I mention that the Amendment was religiously motivated and targeted a specific community because it was introduced to neutralize the heavy efflux of people from Bangladesh, majority of whom are Muslims and happened to give birth to their children in India. The present Amendment is just another step furthering that very idea.

After the legislation was assented to by the President of India, the final stamping authority required for converting any bill into a legislation after the same has been passed by both the houses of the Indian Parliament, there has been a massive public uproar in the entire country. The entire political opposition has been on the streets rallying against the passage of the Amendment and a slew of petitions have already been filed in the Supreme Court of India (the apex Indian court), challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation. The petitions do, and rightly so, question the Amendment to be arbitrary as the classifications drawn by the Amendment are based on the inherent qualities of a human being, which the Indian Constitution prohibits. 

Under Article 15 of the Constitution, while the same is applicable only to the citizens of India, the presence of certain listed categories mandates that discrimination on the basis of the inherent qualities of a person is prohibited by the Indian Constitution, two of which are religion and place of birth. In that sense, the classifications drawn by the new Amendment itself are based on religion and the country of that person and hence, will fall fowl of the equality code of the Constitution. While it is being extensively argued how the limitation of applicability of Article 15 operates against the Muslim illegal migrants itself, it has to be recognized that Article 14, which is applicable to all persons and not just to citizens, will operate on the same principle which forms the basis of Article 15 as well.

As I conclude this article, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, another Indian state bordering Bangladesh, has given a clarion call to conduct a plebiscite on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 under the vigil of the United Nations so as to reach the conclusion whether the people of the country support something like the Amendment Act. While I do not believe how valid is the demand for conducting a plebiscite will be, given that the Indian Constitution contains a well-defined and structured procedure for creation of a legislation, however, the repercussions of categorically exiling a community into invalidity will not be feeble, to begin with.

Erosion of the Right to Freedom in Kashmir: How India Violated Established Principles of Constitutional and International Law

Guest Contributor Bhaskar Kumar is a 3rd year student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore. His areas of interest include criminal justice, human rights, constitutionalism and international law. He writes for a number of platforms including law review blogs and media platforms like The Hindu, Live law JILS-NUJS etc.

In anticipation of unrest after altering the special constitutional status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government detained several political leaders and imposed a broad restriction on freedom of movement and press in August 2019.  

These restrictions were imposed in the aftermath of abolishing article 370 of Indian Constitution. This article was part of the Constitution of India which provided special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. By virtue of this article, the people of Jammu and Kashmir used to enjoy some privileges including exclusive property rights. 

The government justified this amendment by considering it a step that ensures the complete integration of the state into the Union of India and to have better control over the territory in order to curb terrorist activities allegedly taking place there.

By imposing section 144 of Criminal Procedure code (1973), the government banned public meetings and shut down the internet and phone services completely which consequently disrupted news and information services. With this step, the government of India has violated the right of freedom guaranteed under article 19 of Indian constitution which protects citizens’ right to freedom of movement, assemble peacefully without arms and press until and unless security of state, sovereignty or interests of the general public is at stake. When such concerns are at stake the government might impose reasonable restrictions over enjoyment of these rights.

In the present case, however, the measures taken by the government of India cannot be said to put reasonable restrictions on the enjoyment of these rights in light of numerous judgments delivered by the apex court. In Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India(1985) 1 SCC 641, the Supreme Court held that freedom of press is crucial to communicate facts and opinions which educate people about political establishments and hence, there cannot be any interference with that freedom in the name of public interest. In the present scenario, due to imposition of restrictions, newspapers are not able to operate or circulate their services. This amounts to an infringement of the right to freedom of expression.

While stressing the importance of the freedom of the press, the Apex court in Dinesh Trivedi v Union of India held that citizens have the right to know about government decisions and actions. But citizens can only know government’s decisions and restrictions when they have access to media sources. In Sakal papers pvt. ltd. v Union of India the Supreme Court observed that the right to freedom of speech entails the right to circulate one’s views to all whom one can reach and care to reach and courts must be vigilant of any kind of restriction over such circulation of views in order to preserve the democratic ethos. 

Due to the imposition of a curfew in Kashmir and the presence of a large number of military personnel, it is impossible for a journalist to cover the news about the prevailing conditions due to imposition of section 144 CrPC. According to its managing editor, the Kashmir Times, a leading newspaper of state, has only been able to publish a minute version of its editions because of restrictions. The imposition of section 144 has made it almost impossible for journalists to carry on their duties.


In Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra the apex court ruled that section 144 of CrPC can only be imposed when there is an actual prominent threat endangering public order and tranquility which has not been ensured by government before imposing the curfew. The Internet has also been shut down and the circulation of information has been impossible because of this. The Government of India has ruthlessly interfered with the freedom of press and information. The mandate of article 19 doesn’t give the unbridled power to governments to impose restriction merely on the grounds of speculation and anticipation. The reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights cannot be of such disproportionate nature that they extinguish the right itself. The Indian government has failed to justify the nexus between potential terrorist threats and internet and media shut down for an unreasonably long period of time, as there is no indication of any kind of threat to public tranquility in the  present case.

Looking at the situation from the perspective of international humanitarian law, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ,which has been signed and ratified by India, requires that the government protect the right to freedom of expression and Information. According to a resolution passed in 2012, the UNHRC affirmed that right to information applied online as well. Article 19(2) of the ICCPR mandates that everyone “shall  have right to freedom of expression and this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print in the form of art or through any other media of his choice”. As per article 19(3) of ICCPR, the right to freedom of expression and information can only be restricted on the conditions that they are done so by law and are necessary for respecting the rights of others and to protect the national security or public order.

In the present case, the aspect of necessity has severely been overlooked. As discussed earlier, there was no substance to show that there was in fact a threat to national security and public order. The respect of modern communication channels–particularly the internet–is very important for a democratic country. As an interactive medium, the Internet opens up new possibilities for communication and is accordingly relevant for the theory of democracy. It ensures participation by forming audiences and opposing audiences and enhances the possibilities for political information, deliberation and participation. No other medium facilitates the communication between state and citizen to the extent that the internet does.  Research on the importance of the internet for civil society groups shows that net-based communication is  key for the organization of transnational protests and solidarity in particular. Even though some studies have pointed out that online content is relatively conventional and little use is being made of the interactive potential inherent to the technology, this form of communication remains. In Ahmed Yildirim v. Turkey the European Court of Human Rights held that the access to media platforms is an indispensable tool for exercising the right to freedom.

The recent steps taken by Indian government in Kashmir constitute serious violations of principles enshrined in the constitution of India and international covenants signed and ratified by India. However, the government has not responded to the questions raised by media and civil society in this regard. Last month a delegation from European Union visited Srinagar, (the capital of Jammu and Kashmir) to have a first-hand understanding of situation. The visit was diplomatically important as the government’s move was criticized internationally by lawmakers. However, the visit was unofficial and there was no intention on the part of delegates to submit the report to European Union.

The Indian government should not have unbridled power to curtail the fundamental rights of its citizens. Constraints imposed on media and the internet must therefore be removed as soon as possible and citizens should continue to enjoy their freedom of speech.