Archive for Americas

Lives in Limbo: Immigration as a Human Rights Issue

“Trump Zero Tolerance,” artwork by Dan Lacey // Flickr

By Jalileh Garcia, a blog writer for RightsViews and an undergraduate student at Columbia University 

In late June, the event “Lives in Limbo: Immigration as a Human Rights Issue” took place in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The event was a direct response to the current administration’s immigration policies, which were highlighted by the recent and highly controversial separation of children from their parents. In the last couple of months, photographs and voice recordings of children crying “Mami” and “Papa” have overtaken the web. The children, predominantly from Central American countries, some as young as 18 months old, have become the focal point of the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy.

Courts set a deadline for July 26 to reunite the children with their families, but the government has stated that hundreds of families were ineligible to be united. In total, 711 children remain in custody, according to the latest tally from the government. Furthermore, many of the children who have been united with their families have likely experienced significant trauma from being separated from their parents and held in detention. In the midst of the country’s ongoing immigration crisis, communities and activists have gathered to try to understand the complex issues facing immigrant children and all of those whose lives remain in limbo. 

The event “Lives in Limbo: Immigration as a Human Rights Issue” took place in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in June 2018. // Jalileh Garcia

“Welcome to a conversation about humanity,” said Geeta Pradhan, president of the Cambridge Community Foundation, who opened the event in Cambridge focused on immigration as a human rights issue. Pradhan introduced the panelists, who included Marc McGovern, mayor of Cambridge, human rights attorneys, legal scholars and professors.

McGovern began the conversation by stating, “I’ve heard people say that this is not the America they know.” However, he continued, “We must recognize that the America we know was one founded on the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment, colonialism, and police brutality.” By acknowledging this history, McGovern believes we can recognize the current state of affairs in the United States as a natural progression of history.

Speaker Daniel Kanstroom, a professor of law and director of the International Human Rights program at Boston College spoke next and expounded on the current state of affairs of immigration in the United States.

“We are experiencing a clever attack on immigrants which is marked by brazenness and masked by national security facades, which have inevitably resulted in a brutal violence against human rights,” he said.  

Asylum seekers have been labeled as criminals, even though they have the right to safety, protection, and fair trials under international law. The U.S. government’s actions to separate children from their families has gone so far as to receive criticism from the United Nations. A spokeswoman of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ravina Shamdasani stated, “It is never in the best interests of the child [to be detained] and always constitutes a child rights violation.” Meanwhile, private corporations that own and manage detention centers are profiting off of the detainment of people.

These complex issues call for a deep understanding of the root causes, true solidarity with survivors, and the protection of human rights, the panel agreed.

“So, how did we get here?” asked Kanstroom.

The immigration crisis is the culmination of a decades-old deportation system, which has been structurally created, the panel noted. It is the result of reactionary politics starting with nativist movements; the Chinese Exclusion Act, for example, or when Mexican immigrants were suddenly barred from coming to the United States in 1965 unless they received authorization.

Global politics has also played a significant role. Since the Monroe Doctrine was established in 1823, the expansion of the United States’ control has continued to have significant consequences on its neighbors to the south. U.S. private companies have vacated the Latin American region of its resources by creating massive wealth gaps that have for generations perpetuated cycles of poverty. Simultaneously, corrupt governments have risen to power, many with U.S. aid through CIA or military intervention policies in Central and South America and the Caribbean. These governments have often been emboldened to turn against the interests of their people, creating the circumstances that drive many to flee from their native countries, the panel indicated.

Panelists at the event, “Lives in Limbo: Immigration as a Human Rights Issue,” in June 2018.

In the discourse of immigration, the speakers noted the importance of conversations about mental health. Mojdeh Rohani, executive director at Community Legal Services and a mental health practitioner, expounded on the topic. “What is an asylum seeker?” she asked the crowd. “Well, an asylum seeker has a story. They are survivors of domestic violence, gang violence, persecution, and trauma,” she said. The trauma asylum seekers face begins elsewhere, but it becomes heightened during their time at U.S. government-run detention centers. They come to the United States for safety, but they can be subject in inhumane conditions that exacerbate their trauma. Rohani highlighted that if we keep treating asylum seekers without dignity, “we may be responsible for harboring the next generation of gangs.”  

The panelists at the “Lives in Limbo” event endeavored to come up with initiatives that individuals and communities could partake in to help resolve the immigration crisis.

Michael J. Wishnie, a clinical professor of law at Yale Law School, spoke on the matter. “We must come together, stand up, and bear witness to the human experience.” Wishnie also suggested that people engage in policy changes, grassroots movements and electoral processes.

To build upon this, Roberto Gonzales, professor of education at Harvard, asked the people of Cambridge to “focus efforts on the local level, as every policy is carried out in our localities, and could be affecting our very neighbors.”

However, the panelists acknowledged, the real change needs to come from a change of hearts. Policies cannot be grounded in empathy if people do not feel empathy for immigrant populations and a necessity to protect their human rights. Perhaps the most excruciating fact is that changes of attitude do not happen overnight. If future generations come to prioritize human rights, the people in the United States and abroad can begin to see tangible change to immigration policies that threaten the basic rights of fellow humans.

Jalileh Garcia is an undergraduate student at Columbia University pursuing a Human Rights major with a specialization in Latin America. She is originally from Honduras and is interested in transitional justice, intersectionality, and the interchange of immigration and human rights. She is an executive board member of Columbia University’s Alianza, the Baha’i Club, and the Columbia Students for Human Rights (CUSHR). 

#MeToo – Now What? From Outcry to Action

By Sharon Song, an MA student in Human Rights Studies at Columbia University

“I was an optimistic, driven, hardworking and ambitious young woman, determined to pursue a career in acting… I found myself relentlessly harassed… My life and career was in the hands of people intent on destruction, people who judged and vilified me in ways they never would have done if I was a man… I fought back, I got privacy laws changed.” – Sienna Miller, Actress & Activist

On the final day at the 62nd UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the United Nations’ largest gathering on gender equality and women’s rights, the energy and anticipation was almost palpable. Journalists and activists convened at the UN headquarters to snatch a seat at a side-event discussing women in the media.

Since the tidal wave of #MeToo posts sprung up last fall in the wake of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual perpetrations against dozens of women, activists across the nation and around the world have attempted to use the rapid momentum in the media to create lasting cultural change. The digital media has become a platform to speak out, retort, and start a dialogue to critically reflect on statements that were once considered harmless or largely ignored. More than 100 high-powered men across industries now stand accused of sexual harassment and misconduct. Many have fallen from grace, and others have been forced to resign. Perhaps for the first time in history, we’re seeing accountability played out in real time. There’s no denying that this moment is a transformative movement in social change. But we have now come to a vexing question: what now?

An event at the UN discussed how the media can be a powerful player in driving gender equality as part of the Sustainable Development Agenda. // UN Women

Addressing a largely female crowd, actress and activist Sienna Miller provided opening remarks at the event, which was organized by UN Women, The Guardian, and the Permanent Mission of Norway to the UN. Miller shared her own story of living her life in the spotlight, the paparazzi-frenzy that seems to be less forgiving towards women, and moments when she felt professionally undervalued and undermined because of her gender. The actress turned down a role in a Broadway production after learning that she was offered less than half of what her male co-star was being paid. She said, “It turned out to be a pivotal moment in my life. Not because I did it. But because I didn’t.”

Miller’s personal account of gender discrimination was a stark reminder of the glaring blind spot of the #MeToo movement and its lack of inclusivity. Because the reality is this: not all women have the luxury of saying no to a paycheck. Risking your livelihood as a member of the upper class in affluent Los Angeles is not the same as risking your livelihood working a blue-collar job in middle-town America.

At the same time, you cannot dismiss the pivotal role Hollywood power players have in the discourse of gender discrimination. After all, it is the famous faces behind the narratives that sparked the #MeToo conversation on the world stage in the first place. The panel discussion included Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the executive director of UN Women, who spoke on the solidarity that could be achieved between women in Hollywood and women in rural parts of the world. She emphasized that there is an opportunity for women in the public eye to “speak for other women who are outside and invisible.”

There is an initiative in Hollywood that is attempting to connect the voices between A-list movie stars and women working blue-collar jobs. The Time’s Up organization – spearheaded by actress Reese Witherspoon – is striving to stamp out patriarchy for all women, regardless of class. To date, the organization has raised more than $20 million dollars to provide legal defense funds for low-income women who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse. Perhaps we’ll soon see a Hollywood-stamped initiative that can cross borders to aid women in the Global South with little power and fewer resources. Mlambo-Ngcuka says seeing powerful men being held accountable on the public stage is not only sending a message to rural parts of the globe, but to younger generations: “Accountability says to young men that this is not normal, this is not right.”

It’s safe to say that the reckoning has begun. In December 2017, a group of House and Senate lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation to respond to sexual harassment in Congress. The bill, named the Member and Employee Training and Oversight On (ME TOO) Congress Act, attempts to overhaul the system for filing and settling harassment claims made by congressional employees. The power of the #hashtag is bringing real political change to the U.S.

Pamella Sittoni, the managing editor of EastAfrican, speaks at the panel event, “Women in the Media: From Outcry to Action.” // UN Women

The speakers at the CSW panel discussion attempted to offer concrete solutions in the aftermath of #MeToo, in order to successfully initiate positive change and leave no individuals – regardless of race and class – behind. Pamella Sittoni, the managing editor of EastAfrican, a weekly newspaper published in Kenya, stressed the need for #MeToo to be seen as a genderless movement. She said #MeToo is not a women’s movement but a “humanity movement” about respecting dignity. She then emphasized the need for more men in leadership positions to be at the forefront in the discussions of gender equality: “Men shouldn’t feel that this is something targeting them. It’s a movement about a good world for all of us.”

In addition, the revelations learned through the watershed movement need to be spelled out on paper. Mlambo-Ngcuka, the executive director of UN Women, argued that workplaces must review anti-harassment policies to ensure that gender-based discrimination is included. Changes must be made alongside the ongoing conversations facilitated by the #MeToo movement: “Sustain it, institutionalize it and make sure that it is reflected in the policies at the workplace.” She also called on journalists in the room to stay with the story of #MeToo and gender discrimination and not to stop writing until gender equality is reached.

While the panel discussion and the energy has progressed exponentially from just last year, I found the conversation to be overly polite and frustratingly surface-level. More than 8,000 people from 1,121 civil society organizations have registered for the CSW gathering this year – making it the largest number of attendees to date. Clearly, there is a widespread consciousness of feminist ideas in the public space across the globe. If we want structural change and solidarity to be achieved amongst feminists in all parts of the world, harder questions need to be addressed. What are the struggles of the women who are less visible and have less resources? How does their narrative connect to the women in Hollywood? How can the movement change to be more inviting towards men? What other angles can journalists take to effectively cover the #MeToo movement instead of simply being a “gotcha” game?

Perhaps it isn’t fair to expect a two-hour panel discussion to successfully tackle all the muddled areas that have emerged with the #MeToo movement. But it’s clear that a corner has been turned, and the closing remarks by Norway’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Ine Marie Eriksen Soreide couldn’t have been more fitting. “There is no going back after this,” she said.

Sharon Song is a TV news personality in New York City, best known for anchoring behind the weather desk and reporting on entertainment news. She is also a national writer for FOX News. Sharon is currently getting her master’s degree in Human Rights at Columbia University. Prior to that, she was a Weather Anchor/Entertainment Reporter for Fios 1 News. ​She was also the Headlines News Reporter for Channel One News and a Weather Anchor/ Reporter for KULR-8 NBC News. Sharon is a big believer in giving back to the community. Off the air, you can catch her emceeing and hosting charity galas for numerous Tri-State organizations. She attended Boston University where she earned her bachelor’s degree in broadcast journalism with a minor in religion. 

Unjust Justice: A Case of American Exceptionalism

By Olivia Heffernan, a master’s candidate at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs 

The United States represents four percent of the world’s population but is home to 22 percent of the world’s prisoners. These disproportionate figures, and the financial and emotional burdens of mass incarceration in America, were the topic of a recent discussion at Columbia University between former Mayor of Philadelphia Michael Nutter and Obama administration official Elias Alcantara. The discussion, hosted by the Criminal Justice Reform Working Group (CJR) at the School of International and Public Affairs, brought together two panelists well suited to discuss criminal justice policy—its challenges, similarities and differences—on city and federal levels.

As a country that prides itself on its values of freedom and equality, the United States demonstrates a gaping contradiction with its discriminatory and broken justice system. Spikes in incarceration rates are often attributed to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by former President Bill Clinton, which implemented a series of policies that disproportionately impacted racial minorities. The law, the largest crime bill in the history of the United States, included a “three strikes” mandatory life sentence for repeat offenders. As a result of this and other criminal justice policies, blacks are incarcerated in state prisons at more than five times the rate of whites. Furthermore, at any given time, approximately 20 percent of the 2.3 million incarcerated persons in the U.S. have yet to be convicted; they are simply waiting for their day in court. These figures run antithetical to U.S. values as a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in Article 11 recognizes the “right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial.”

Former Mayor of Philadelphia Michael Nutter (right) and Obama administration official Elias Alcantara (left) speak at Columbia University in December. // Nitin Magima

An outspoken advocate for fair policing policies, Nutter opened the discussion by distinguishing the difference between incarceration and rehabilitation. The day a person enters jail is the day the justice system must plan for their release, he said. Reentry efforts are part and parcel to crime reduction. The number one factor contributing to recidivism rates is employment post incarceration, according to Nutter. “It’s a vicious circle. The current programs, rules and institutions in place are not designed to help the formerly incarcerated reenter society and get jobs,” he said.  

Nutter also spoke to the pressure politicians face to portray themselves as tough on crime. As Mayor of Philadelphia for two terms, he recalled taking an oath to protect the citizens of his city and the challenges that came with trying to strike a balance between being smart and tough. “It is definitely a balancing act, but the two should not be seen as mutually exclusive,” he said.

Some of the faults of the criminal justice system can be attributed to the fact that there is no uniform criminal justice policy. With over 18,000 police departments and thousands of mayors in the United States, there is confusion, limited resources and conflicting power dynamics. Amidst all of these moving parts, it is possible to lose sight of the purpose of a criminal justice system: justice, not money, accolades, approval ratings or reelection. At the end of the day these are people. Nutter urged attendees “to look at folks for who they are now, not for what they had done or been convicted of, because this is the first and most crucial step to ending mass incarceration.”

Alcantara, who during his tenure in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs during the Obama administration established strategic partnerships with local and national leaders on criminal justice reform, discussed his relationship with police and the law as a young man of color growing up in the Bronx. He traced the issue of mass incarceration and disproportionate effects of the criminal justice system on men of color to slavery. “Philosophically, we have a punishment paradigm that doesn’t make sense and what is most often forgotten is that our justice system is broken. Period,” Alcantara said.

Members of the Criminal Justice Reform Working Group at Columbia University met with former Mayor Michael Nutter and Obama administration official Elias Alcantara. // Kier Joy

However, Alcantara also made a point to mention that despite a broken justice system, there are options to move the country in the right direction and toward meaningful reform. He highlighted the fact that this is largely a bipartisan issue and referenced working with the ultra-conservative Koch brothers on criminal justice policy reform to demonstrate that both sides of the political spectrum must be present at the table for policy to pass and be effective. Unfortunately, despite the major improvements that New York and other major U.S. cities have made in reforming and reducing prison populations, these successes also come amidst “discouraging signals from President Trump that may portend a return to reflexive over-reliance upon incarceration,” according to Politico.

When asked where we can go from here, Alcantara suggested that efforts be focused on either end of the justice system: policing and reentry are the most effective means of challenging high incarceration rates, he said. He also emphasized the importance of engaging both jail and law enforcement in dialogue about the justice system. For example, the New York Bar Association’s recent report on New York City’s progress in reducing its jail population cited the following initiatives as driving successful criminal justice reform: early release for prisoners under new, less harsh sentencing guidelines, de-escalation trainings for police officers, and expanded re-entry programs focusing on employment, education and mental health.

Former Mayor of Philadelphia Michael Nutter spoke about the pressures faced by politicians to portray themselves as tough on crime. // Kier Joy

Finally, Alcantara recommended to audience members and politicians, in particular, to visit prison. “Prisons are one of the few institutions we can be oblivious to until you go and visit them,” he said. Alcantara cited President Obama’s visit to el Reno prison outside of Oklahoma City in 2015 as an example. As the first president ever to visit a federal prison, Obama set a new precedent and altered the dialogue and philosophies around the criminal justice system, Alcantara said.

Nutter closed the discussion by saying, “The real underlying question behind this whole problem is: when you finishing serving your time, when is your time over?” Unfortunately, in today’s system, a person’s mistake, or in many cases the justice system’s mistake, dictate a person’s trajectory for the rest of his or her life.

Olivia Heffernan is a student at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs concentrating in social and urban policy and specializing in journalism. She is president of the Criminal Justice Reform Working Group (CJR) and has previously worked for human rights-related nonprofits. Olivia is originally from Washington, D.C., but she has spent multiple years living abroad.

Human Rights Futures

By Ayesha Amin, a blog writer for RightsViews and a M.P.A. candidate at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs

Is the human rights movement on the road to nowhere? Last Thursday, the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University hosted a book launch and panel discussion on “Human Rights Futures,” edited by Stephen Hopgood, Jack Snyder and Leslie Vinjamuri. The book brings together 15 mainstream human rights scholars and their critics to debate alternative futures for the human rights movement.

The panel conversation was moderated by Andrew Nathan, professor of political science at Columbia University, and included four contributors to the book: Jack Snyder, Belfer Professor of International Relations at Columbia University; Shereen Hertel, editor of the Journal of Human Rights; Alexander Cooley, director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University; and Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the Centre on Conflict, Rights and Justice at SOAS, University of London. Other panelists included Aryeh Neier, co-founder of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations; Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa Division; and Sarah Mendehlson, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council.  

The International Criminal Court in 2010 // josef.stuefer // Flickr

The discussion between these human rights experts quickly zeroed in on the growing strategic backlash against the human rights field. This phenomenon takes many forms, from the rejection of the International Criminal Court by some countries in Africa to the delegitimizing of activists as “foreign agents” in Russia and creation of counter-norms in President Putin’s defense of “traditional values” against multiculturalism, feminism and homosexuality. Typically viewed as a problem confined to authoritarian and transitional states in the Global South, recent events in the U.S., U.K. and Europe demonstrate that the West is not immune. As Whitson described it, the present moment we find ourselves in is “bad, apocalyptically bad, with a unique feature of being cheer-led by an authoritarian White House.”

The panel was asked whether this represented a historical regression, or just the usual arm wrestling between governments and their critics? The “spiral model” in theories of human rights promotion, after all, anticipates some degree of backlash. Cooley argued that what makes the current backlash different is that it is not confined to the international human rights architecture. It is geopolitical in nature and aimed against the global governance architecture established in the 1980s and 90s. Mendehlson, from her experience at USAID and the U.N., agreed, adding that it is not just human rights groups under attack, but also environmental and humanitarian groups. “We are seeing the entire business model of external funding to local groups being questioned, and often under the cover of sovereignty.”

Protestors march against Trump in Melbourne // Corey Oakley // Flickr

What has caused this backlash? Mendehlson thought the overly legalistic approach of the international human rights movement had resulted in a disconnect between the efforts of international organizations and local populations. “Elevating the local voice is critical,” she said. Vinjamuri queried whether international human rights organizations, especially those headquartered in the United States, engendered a degree of suspicion among the local population. These organisations are often seen as representing the long arm of the U.S. government, closely aligned with U.S. foreign policy and potentially also with its intelligence agencies.

The growing localization of universalistic human rights language is one of the alternative approaches to human rights advocacy considered in the book. It reduces the risk that human rights advocates will be labelled “handmaidens of imperialism.” Whitson said she had observed this process first-hand. “Over the past 15 years, Human Rights Watch has spent time becoming local organizations in the countries we are working in.” As a result, HRW now spends less time convincing local audiences of its neutral credentials and more time on the important work of rights advocacy.  

The relationship between international and local groups is also more nuanced now. Neier described it as symbiotic. Hertel observed that local groups strategically use their alliance with international organizations to their advantage, focusing on where the expertise and resources lie.  

Columbia University hosted a book launch and panel discussion on “Human Rights Futures” in November. // Ayesha Amin

The panel ended with some final observations on how the human rights movement should adapt to our new reality. For example, how can we achieve human rights in places where the old playbook of “legalism, moralism and universalism” is not available to us, or no longer works? Synder argued that the necessary conditions for successfully achieving human rights outcomes are peace and democracy. His prescription for struggling human rights advocates today? Engender mass social movements in connection with a progressive political party.

Neier thought Snyder overstated the connection between democracy and human rights. He observed that in countries at the point of democratization, ethnic nationalism often becomes a more significant force than it was previously. “It is not accidental that the democratization of Myanmar has been accompanied by horrendous abuses against the Rohingya,” he said. What is required is to have respect for human rights principles baked into the transition process, because the aftermath might be too late.

Ayesha Amin is a New Zealander currently pursuing her Master of Public Administration degree at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs concentrating in International Security Policy. She holds a graduate degree in international relations and human rights, an L.L.B., and a B.A. in economics. Her interests include contemporary critiques of human rights, corporations and human rights compliance, and the right to self-determination. Ayesha is a blog writer for RightsViews.

What of those who stood by and watched? Reckoning with Racial Injustice in the U.S.

By Olivia Heffernan, a master’s candidate at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs 

“If you want the American dream, go to Canada,” Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, told audience members during Thursday night’s lecture, “Reckoning with Racial Injustice in the United States,” hosted by NYU Law School’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ).

Walker and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund Sherrilyn Ifill engaged in a provocative conversation moderated by David Tolbert, president of ICTJ. Tolbert began the panel by stressing the importance of having “unsettling dialogues” among groups at opposite ends of the justice spectrum in order to foster innovative thinking, understanding, and eventually action. Coinciding with the one-year anniversary of Trump’s election, a discussion about truth, justice and reconciliation felt particularly pertinent given the President’s record on racial injustice. Trump’s recalcitrant response to Charlottesville and his public condemnations of immigrants have exacerbated racial tensions in the United States, in many ways emboldening white supremacists to act in ways previously deemed inappropriate. CNN reports that 60 percent of Americans believe racism to be a problem in the U.S., an increase of 10 percent since 2009.  

Asked to address the structural causes behind racial injustice in the United States, Walker pointed to the United States’ desperate need to display a narrative of “exceptionalism,” which has formed a history based on lies. The failure of the United States to acknowledge a history plagued by injustice, for example, has impaired the country from making any progress, he said. Truth and reconciliation requires recognizing the existence of wrongs and accepting responsibility for them. There is no clarity without truth. Furthermore, in order to remediate racial discrimination, we must no longer see racism as solely affecting African Americans, but rather as a pervasive injustice that affects every person and as a threat to our democracy.

The same CNN report mentioned above also found that “87 percent of black Americans say black people face a lot of discrimination in the United States, but only 49 percent of white Americans say the same thing.” This large discrepancy demonstrates the unwillingness of many white Americans to admit to widespread racial intolerance even in the presence of clear evidence.

A lecture on racial injustice in the United States was hosted by NYU Law School and the International Center for Transitional Justice. // NYU CHR&GJ

Similarly, Ifill stressed the importance of truth telling in the process of reconciling our past and present. We must undo the mythologies surrounding racial violence and look at the role of the average person in either perpetuating or rejecting discrimination. “What of the crowd? What of the people who watched?” she asked, making the point that silence or inaction in cases of racial discrimination is another form of complicity. Shame and fear produce silence, and in silence lies develop, along with a refusal to acknowledge and apologize, she said.

The panel agreed that public education and truth telling are prerequisites to precipitate activism and real reform. Justice and reconciliation are processes that begin with confronting the truth, Ifill said, followed by thinking about who you are in relation to that truth and ending with a decision about what to do with that truth and your relation to it.

In human rights theory and practice, justice and reconciliation are means through which parties reckon with past injustice, whether that be something as widespread as genocide or more micro-level disputes among individuals. Increasingly, human rights theorists have turned to reconciliation methods such as truth commissions, as seen in South Africa post-apartheid, or Gacaca Courts used after the Rwandan genocide, and more recently, through restorative justice in mediating criminal court cases and reparations to the families of former slaves of Georgetown University, for example. To demonstrate the value of reconciliation in its aim to address historical wrongs as means of facilitating present-day conflict resolution, Institute for the Study of Human Rights director Elazar Barkan’s article, “Truth and Reconciliation in History,” provides three case studies that trace the origins of reconciliation and its effectiveness in creating a shared narrative across country and ethnic boundaries.

When speaking truth to power, we must take into account the environment and institutions that enable discrimination, whether racial, economic or religion-based. Ifill urged the audience to not accept the current state of inequality and prejudice as inevitable. Police brutality and an unjust criminal justice system from Eric Garner to the Central Park Five are direct products of decisions we have made and the structures we have created that perpetuate them. In other words, our challenge is not only racism, it is also elitism and classism and the ubiquitous trends that enable widespread inequality.

Fortunately, Walker has hope, noting that he believes where we are now is the closest we have come to having a national conversation about race. So, let’s not run to Canada quite yet.

Olivia Heffernan is a student at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs concentrating in social and urban policy and specializing in journalism. She is president of the Criminal Justice Reform Working Group (CJR) and has previously worked for human rights-related nonprofits. Olivia is originally from Washington, D.C., but she has spent multiple years living abroad.

Corporate Social Responsibility Belongs on the U.S. Human Rights Agenda

By Ashley E. Chappo, editor of RightsViews and a M.I.A. candidate at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University

Last week represented a potential turning point for the United States in its commitment to international human rights law and corporate regulation. From October 23 to 27, members of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises (OEIGWG) convened at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, to draft a legally-binding instrument with respect to corporations and human rights. Despite its leadership role in the world order and the prominence of transnational corporations operating within its borders, the United States has so far remained disengaged from negotiations on this new treaty agreement.

Artwork condemning alleged sweatshop abuses by Apple. // marissaorton // Flickr

The treaty process, which could take years to complete, is a historic opportunity for the United States to stand up for its shared values with other governments in regulating and holding accountable the stateless, corporate actors often associated with violations of human rights, from alleged sweatshop abuses by Nike in Vietnam to dangerous working conditions at an Apple factory in China. The OEIGWG hopes to close a critical governance gap in the international human rights framework. A single, international legal framework by which transnational corporations can be held accountable for violations of human rights would be the ideal instrument for corporate human rights transgressors.

The meeting last week was the third session of the working group, established in June 2014 during the 26th session of the Human Rights Council, and followed a social movement for change led by over 600 civil society organizations worldwide, officially known as the “Treaty Alliance.” Resolution 26/9 provided the working group with a mandate to “elaborate an international legally-binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.” Such a treaty has been on the table since the 1970s but has repeatedly been opposed by the business sector and Western governments.

A garment factory in Vietnam. // ILO in Asia and the Pacific // Flickr

To date, one of the largest challenges to the treaty remains the continued opposition from key countries that have decided not to be involved in the creation of a binding agreement. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), adopted in 2011, clearly helped to develop a stronger international consensus around responsible business conduct, with 17 states now having produced a National Action Plan and 32 others in the process of developing such a plan through government or civil society action, but an obligatory framework remains the ultimate goal. The proposed treaty faces resistance not only from the U.S., but also from a significant number of developed U.N. Member States and Western powers, including the United Kingdom and other European Union countries. The first two sessions of the working group, which were dedicated to “conducting constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument,” lacked contribution from these keys states.

In addition, when the working group was formed by Resolution 26/9, twenty states including the Africa Group, Russia, China and India voted in favor of the resolution, while 14 States including the U.S., U.K., Germany, France and Japan voted against it, demonstrating early and deep divisions among states. The present push for a binding treaty has largely been led by nations from the Global South, which may explain in part some of the resistance from the West. The resolution, proposed by Ecuador and co-sponsored by Bolivia, Cuba, South Africa, and Venezuela, also received and continues to receive vigorous support from civil society organizations and the private sector. With leadership and input from the U.S., a hard law framework would gain more traction.

U.N. special representative John Ruggie // Creative Commons

As the Trump administration continues to cut regulatory red tape on business enterprises in pursuit of economic revival, it is ever more important that the United States work to implement the UNGPs while also championing corporate social responsibility at the international level. The UNGPs, developed by U.N. special representative John Ruggie, were unanimously endorsed by the Human Rights Council and consist of 31 voluntary guidelines to implement the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework, which seeks to prevent, address and remedy human rights violations committed in business operations. Such violations, for example, have included the injury of more than 100,000 people in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, through illegal toxic-waste dumping initiated by multinational oil trading company Trafigura, and the destruction of the Ecuadorian rainforest and its critical water resources by Chevron (formerly Texaco), dubbed “Rainforest Chernobyl.” While the UNGP framework for enhancing business standards is internationally accepted, it is not obligatory, raising questions about its ability to hold stateless violators like Trafigura and Chevron accountable.

Toxic industrial waste disposal remains an issue of corporate violators // fernost // Creative Commons

Following the first session of the intergovernmental working group, Ruggie wrote about the main problems that face the treaty, including its lack of a specific focus, the deep divisions among states and its limited scope of transnational corporations. If these dynamics continue, he contends, “the process is likely to yield one of two outcomes: no treaty at all, or one that squeaks through to adoption but is ratified by few if any major home countries and thus would be of no help to victims in whose name the negotiations were launched.” At the conclusion of this third session, Ruggie told RightsViews, “What I said after the last session still holds.” Though he believes further international legalization in business and human rights is inevitable and desirable, he says there is little hope for the treaty if civil society does not advance workable proposals that states cannot ignore.

With fewer restrictions on businesses and some of the most powerful transnational corporate giants operating under very little scrutiny in regard to human rights, the U.S. needs to include corporate social responsibility on its human rights agenda, both at the civil society and governmental level. While the U.S. has already implemented a National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct, the Global Compact, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and Sustainability Policy of the International Finance Corporation, these more voluntary approaches to corporate social responsibility, with some mandatory elements and preconditions, are a good start but not adequate to solving human rights abuses by international corporate actors.

Ashley E. Chappo is a Master of International Affairs candidate at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a recent graduate of Columbia Journalism School. She concentrates in human rights and humanitarian policy and is a current student of the Corporations and Human Rights seminar. She is editor of RightsViews. 


Counterterrorism and Human Rights under the Trump Administration

by Genevieve Zingg, a blog writer for RightsViews and a M.A. student in Human Rights Studies at Columbia University

On Monday, the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School hosted an event on counterterrorism and human rights under the Trump administration. The event featured Laura Pitter, senior national security counsel at the United States program of Human Rights Watch, speaking on the new human rights challenges posed by counterterrorism policies emerging under President Trump.

Prior to working with HRW, Pitter was a journalist and lawyer with the U.N. in Bosnia and Afghanistan. Under the Obama administration, she worked on accountability for past instances of torture and the prevention of government-sanctioned torture. Specifically, she worked to document torture that had not yet come to light prior to the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program.

Laura Pitter talks to students on October 23 at the Human Rights Institute about human rights under Trump // Genevieve Zinng

Human rights concerns under the Obama administration centered on detention practices at Guantanamo and the use of drone strikes. During this time, HRW focused on encouraging the release of Guantanamo detainees and ending the military justice system it operates under. There was also concern under Obama about the overly broad use of terrorism prosecutions, which were used to target individuals who did not necessarily express any intent to engage in terrorism.

Once Trump was elected, HRW’s focus changed as the administration explored the use of torture becoming a legal part of official policy and loosened rules for drone strike operations overseas. “There was already a lack of transparency with regard to drone strikes under Obama’s policies,” Pitter explained during the event. “They said they were careful, but civilians were killed, and we know that they did not properly investigate strikes that went wrong, follow through with reporting requirements, or pay condolence compensation.”

The rules under Obama were already loose, and the concern is that they will continue to deteriorate under the Trump administration. For example, Trump is considering giving the CIA more control over strike operations, so they would be even less transparent than they already are. As a result, Pitter said her work has become more domestically focused under the Trump administration. Trump’s “clear expression of hostility towards Islam” and policies directed toward “radical Islamic terrorism” are a matter of significant concern to HRW, she explained, especially once a draft executive order authorizing the reopening of CIA “blacksite” prisons was leaked in January 2017.

Further concerns over close U.S. partnerships with forces carrying out human rights abuses remain, namely focused on UAE and Saudi partners in Yemen. “We’re worried about proxy detentions and proxy interrogations,” Pitter said. The U.S., for example, has interrogated people in facilities in Yemen where there have been documented cases of torture by the UAE and Saudis. The U.S. claims to not know about these cases, according to HRW. When the organization released its report detailing the U.S.’s use of these facilities in Yemen, Senators John McCain and Jack Reed sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis asking for an investigation. The explanation they received is currently classified, but HRW is advocating to have it made public.

Protests in Washington, D.C., over the Muslim Ban // Creative Commons

“One thing we’re doing more of now is pressing other governments to press the U.S.” Pitter said, responding to a question during the event. “In order for the U.S. to carry out its work abroad, particularly in foreign policy and military operations, it requires the cooperation of other governments. HRW has always had a strong U.N. team, but we operate in that forum more aggressively now.” For instance, HRW built strong alliances with countries like Canada and the Netherlands to push the U.N. Human Rights Council to establish an international inquiry on war crimes in Yemen, against Saudi objections.

The talk emphasized that part of the frustration of the human rights community is that many of the policies laid out by the Obama administration have expanded and are being more aggressively enforced, including large-scale surveillance by the FBI of Muslim communities and immigration deportations. As for the Muslim Ban, arguably Trump’s most controversial executive order at this point in his presidency, there is a larger role for the courts to play in protecting human rights. “The courts from Hawaii to Maryland have recognized that counterterrorism is not a justification for the ban. Even Homeland Security has said that country of citizenship is not a reliable indicator of terrorist activity,” Pitter said. “The government can carry out counterterrorism initiatives without violating the rights of a specific religious or ethnic group. Policies like the Muslim Ban are actually counter to security because they generate anger and hostility toward the U.S.”

There has been strong pushback from the Departments of Defense and Justice and the State Department against some of Trump’s controversial security policies. The DOD and DOJ, for instance, have pushed back against expanding Guantanamo, which currently holds 41 people, only 7 of whom have been charged, while the DOJ has pushed for the use of federal prosecution over military commissions. The CIA and State Department, likewise, have also warned against the floated policy proposal to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, arguing that it doesn’t make sense from a foreign policy perspective.

Pitter ended her talk by focusing on the positive. “This administration has emboldened voices that were silent before. The administration has legitimized discrimination and animus toward minority groups, but at the same time, this has mobilized the human rights movement and engaged communities that weren’t engaged before,” she said. “It’s both a threat and an opportunity to promote respect for human rights, due process, and the fairness of the justice system.”

Genevieve Zingg is currently pursuing her Master’s degree in Human Rights Studies at Columbia University, focusing on human rights in the context of armed conflict, counterterrorism and national security. She is interested in refugees and migration, foreign policy and international politics, international criminal and humanitarian law, and intersectional issues of race and gender. She holds a B.A. (Hons.) from the University of Toronto and has professional experience working in Geneva, Athens, Paris, Brussels and Toronto. Connect with her on Twitter @GenZingg. She is a blog writer for RightsViews. 


Trump, the Other, and Human Rights in Society

By Inga Winkler, a lecturer at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights

Without downplaying the potential impact of a Trump presidency on foreign policy, renewed acceptance of torture as well as the potential impact on climate change, I fear for society at large. A president-elect who ridicules and denigrates migrants, Muslims, Hispanics, women, persons with disabilities and others sets an example. He gives the impression that such behavior and such attitudes are acceptable. His remarks promote ideas of the superiority of some and inferiority of others, based on a socially constructed divide between “us” and “them”.

There is nothing new about racism, sexism and fear of the “other” in US society. It is deeply entrenched. What is new is that the man elected to the highest office institutionalizes and formalizes such attitudes. He legitimizes “othering” and stigmatization. One of the possible explanations for the misleading polls is that voters who declared they were undecided were in fact planning to vote for Trump. They might have felt it was socially unacceptable due to societal norms that condemn xenophobia and misogyny. That “discomfort” is now gone—xenophobia and misogyny have gained more formal and societal acceptance.

We already witness how these attitudes are being acted upon in anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic and racist assaults and attacks. Trump’s half-hearted attempt calling for a stop of such attacks means nothing when at the same time he appointed Steve Bannon, a white supremacist, as chief strategist in the White House.

International human rights law addresses the link between discrimination and prejudices, stereotyping and stigmatization. The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women calls for appropriate measures to “achiev[e] the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.” The Convention against Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities contain similar provisions.

However, these norms do not get the necessary attention in the context of human rights advocacy. We need to devote much more attention to the role stigmatization and “othering” plays in perpetuating discrimination and human rights violations—not just in obvious ways but also in hidden and subtle prejudices. Human rights reach into society and even into the private sphere. Stigmatization and “othering” provide a rationale and antecedent to discrimination. They are often insidious and not directly visible, but they produce and perpetuate systemic inequalities. Human rights advocates and scholars have started to pay more attention to these processes, and this is now more urgent than ever.


Young American Muslims protest outside of Trump Tower in New York City. Flickr/Joe Catron (Some rights reserved)

This needs to happen at all levels, from the inter-personal and local to the use of international mechanisms. To me, it is not about domestic vs. international mechanisms as debated between Hopgood and Sikkink, but about using all the tools we have depending on the context.

Human rights in the private sphere start by addressing racist and other degrading comments in our personal relationships, whether in face-to-face conversations or on social media. It starts by responding to harassment we witness in public spaces. It includes responding to media outlets that spread prejudices and stereotypes. In particular, we need to identify and point out how institutionalized, societal and “everyday” racism, misogyny, xenophobia and other forms of stigmatization reinforce each other. International human rights bodies can play an important role in this regard by making the above mentioned norms more concrete and applying them to particular situations. We need to acknowledge the new realities, but we must not accept them as the new normal.

We also need to realize that although the result of the election is new, the realities of many people who voted for Trump are not. The fact that hardly anyone of the liberal elite expected this result shows how deep the divide is. People who perceived voting for Donald Trump as the best choice, as a result—even if not voting for him because he is racist—are condoning his racism. At the same time, Trump voters—as everyone else—have multiple, intersecting identities that a party system with only two choices may fail to represent.

Racism—and condoning racism—is deeply deplorable. But dismissing an entire demographic as “deplorable”, or using deeply derogatory terms such as “white trash” or slightly more subtle terms pointing to the insignificance of vast regions such as “flyover country”, is also stigmatizing. Such behavior also fails to offer an alternative to the fear of the “other” and scapegoating. Acknowledging and addressing that white communities feel left behind, alienated and disaffected, and seeking to understand their motivations does not mean taking racism, xenophobia and misogyny any less seriously. It means that we leave our bubble and start working on addressing the causes that may lead people to vote for a populist. Above all, this must include policy responses that address very real inequalities and disadvantages. I agree with Moyn that human rights do not have all the answers for addressing inequalities. However, human rights understood in a comprehensive way that encompasses substantive equality and socioeconomic rights can go a long way in doing so.

At the same time, a focus on addressing economic inequalities falls too short. Commentators have suggested that middle and upper class white voters were significant in Trump’s election and that resistance to social and demographic change had a substantial influence on their votes. This makes resistance to any form of intolerance, stigmatization and hatred all the more important. When we can no longer count on the president of the United States to call out racism, sexism and other forms of hatred, it is upon all of us to do just this to a much larger extent. A “rape culture” on US college campuses is not acceptable despite the president-elect’s comments on sexual assault. Nor can we tolerate suspecting people of crimes because of their race or ethnicity. Racism and other forms of hatred against certain groups are violations of human rights in themselves, and lead to further human rights violations.

In a way, the fact that there is nothing subtle and invisible anymore about racism and sexism makes it easier to call it out. We must not be silent. We will not be silent.

Inga Winkler is a lecturer at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University.  Her research focuses on socio-economic rights, gender equality and inequalities. 

This piece was originally published on November 24th, 2016 in openGlobalRights

Political Unrest in Brazil: Will Human Rights Policies Endure Mr. Temer’s Government Program?

By Luiz Henrique Reggi Pecora, an M.A. student in human rights

Primeiramente, fora Temer.
Firstly, down with Temer.

For Brazilians who do not recognize the legitimacy of Michel Temer’s government, this small phrase has gained the weight of a  motto. Michel Temer has assumed office since May, when the Brazilian Congress approved the impeachment process of former president Dilma Rousseff, implementing a governmental project bent towards the interests of conservative groups. More progressive sectors of society have reacted energetically, not only opposing his governmental project, but also criticizing the questionable conditions that led to the removal of Mrs. Rousseff from office – for many, the  impeachment is no more than an excuse for a coup.

Brazilians were creative while protesting during the Olympic games. This couple elaborated two independent signs for supporting national teams, that together say "Down with Temer".

Brazilians were creative while protesting during the Olympic games. This couple elaborated two independent signs for supporting national teams, that together say “Down with Temer”.

After long years of prosperity, how did Brazil come to this critical scenario? The deepening of the economic crisis, combined with the “Lava-Jato” Operation (a series of investigations conducted by the Brazilian Federal Police over a huge corruption scheme involving large Brazilian companies and high-level politicians), contributed to an increasingly pessimistic and rebellious spirit within Brazil. At the same time, opponents of Mrs. Rousseff, many of whom were investigated themselves by “Lava-Jato”, supported campaigns to remove her from office, arguing that she committed a crime of “fiscal irresponsibility” when adopting certain macroeconomic policies.

The subject is controversial. The same manoeuvres had been applied by previous presidents for several years, albeit involving smaller amounts. The crime itself has a broad definition, with strong disagreement between specialists regarding whether it qualifies as a crime at all, or if it is a crime severe enough to justify the Impeachment of a legitimately elected president.

Brazil’s recent  implementation of a conservative agenda raises concerns over the future of policies related to human rights, which are likely to suffer significantly in the coming years. Several federal programs involving socio-economic rights have seen their budgets radically reduced, if not completely eradicated, based on the argument of cutting expenses and reorganizing public administration to reach  fiscal balance. As of this week, a constitutional reform that freezes the budget for the health and educational systems for twenty years has just been approved, risking damage to the already weakened Brazilian public schools and Unified Health System. The national literacy program has already had its activities shut down, and federal universities (where half of the vacancies are reserved for the affirmative action program) will see a drop in investments by almost 50%. “Bolsa-família”, the world renowned redistributive program that provides minimum subsistence support for millions, will also suffer a change in registration requirements, obstructing access for the most vulnerable families.

More ominously, human rights policies as a whole, risk suffering a substantive depletion. Since Mr. Temer’s election,  the Secretariat for Human Rights has been  downgraded from Ministerial status to a subsection of the Ministry of Justice, losing its autonomous  budget and answering to a new Minister who is oriented towards very contentious public safety policies.

Mr. Temer organized a luxurious dinner with public spending to win support for the constitutional reform that was recently approved by the Congress.

Mr. Temer organized a luxurious dinner with public spending to win support for the constitutional reform that was recently approved by the Congress.

This systematic targeting of human rights policies has transpired in just the first four months of Mr. Temer holding office. The argument of fiscal balance, often used to justify the need for the measures taken against human rights oriented programs, reveals itself inconsistent as Mr. Temer has granted considerable concessions for public spending in other areas: generous salary readjustment of public servants, debt relief for federal states, and even extra expenditure for the Olympics. It is more likely that the change in policies directed for the fulfilling of socio-economic rights are an attempt to gain the approval of conservative sectors of society, who have been gaining more political influence in the past few years. Indeed, the Brazilian Congress currently has the largest amount of conservative members since the military coup in 1964.

If Mrs. Rousseff’s government was already criticized for not prioritizing human rights issues, the new agenda enforced by Mr. Temer completely neglects the state’s obligations towards rights that are not only entrenched in the human rights covenants ratified by Brazil, but also within the Brazilian Constitution itself. While his speeches advertise a conciliatory program for the country, his actual policies point to a consistent retrogression.  If Mr. Temer continues with this trend, human rights in Brazil will be once more left behind as a disposable facet of the state’s concerns.

Luiz Henrique Reggi Pecora is a graduate student at the Human Rights Studies M.A.’s program at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University. His research interests include indigenous rights, political activism in civil society, and migrant’s rights.

The U.S. in Yemen: Worth the Human Cost?

By Alan Williams, an M.A. student in human rights

Ten months in, the role of the United States in the GCC-led bombing of Yemen needs to be reevaluated.

The campaign was initiated by the Gulf Cooperation Council in order to destabilize the Houthi militia controlling the government in Yemen’s capital Sana’a, and to reinstate deposed president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. Hundreds of airstrikes later, the UN has reported 8,100 civilian casualties with 2,800 deaths. At this point in the conflict, 93% of the deaths have been civilian. Starvation is at critical levels, and delivering aid to those in need is becoming increasingly difficult. Mirroring the numerous attempts at reaching a lasting ceasefire in Syria, all attempts at making peace have been quickly subverted. At its outset, the United States reluctantly supported the Saudi-led campaign, but such support has proven more harmful than helpful.

Aftermath of a coalition airstrike on a home in Sana’a, Yemen. This airstrike killed five people and destroyed three three-story homes in the Old City which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Aftermath of a coalition airstrike on a home in Sana’a, Yemen. This airstrike killed five people and destroyed three three-story homes in the Old City which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

On March 25th 2015, the National Security Council (NCS) spokesperson announced that President Obama had authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC-led operations in Yemen. Prior to the start of coalition bombing, the United States had acted as a neutral party, maintaining diplomatic relations with the Houthis. Despite a Houthi takeover of the government in Sana’a in September 2014, the American Embassy remained opened until early February. Other American personnel, including roughly 100 Special Forces troops were not evacuated until two days before the White House announcement that made the United States an active party to the conflict.

To borrow from Micah Zenko’s article in Foreign Policy, two of the most important reasons for the United States to support the GCC coalition were to make the GCC comfortable with the Iranian Nuclear Agreement, and to prevent the establishment of an Al-Qaeda presence in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) safe haven. Ten months into this plan, progress has not been made on either goal. Saudi Arabia’s opposition to the nuclear agreement has not waned, and AQAP has not been on the retreat – in fact, they have taken new swaths of territory as recently as this February.

If the United States was only involved to protect its core interests in the region, it has failed. Saudi Arabia has come no closer to détente with Iran, and local extremist elements have only been further enabled by the deteriorating security situation instigated by this campaign. Al-Qaeda’s presence has only grown stronger because of the security vacuum, and ISIS has used this opportunity to ramp up suicide bombings at Shia mosques and other public gatherings. To add to this, the campaign has done nothing for America’s image in the region, an image President Obama has sought to improve since his 2009 speech in Cairo. If anything, American involvement in this campaign has further antagonized those who see the United States as an imperialist presence in the region.

As one of the Arab world’s poorest countries prior to the bombing campaign, Yemen has experienced a catastrophic past ten months. At the beginning of 2015, Yemen imported more than 70% of its fuel, 90% of its food, and 100% of its medicine. Accessing these goods has been made immensely more challenging, as the GCC imposed a blockade on the country’s seaports last year, which remains in effect. Of the population of 24 million, 21 million are in some need of humanitarian assistance. While humanitarian groups have been allowed access to Yemeni civilians, the delivery of goods has been sabotaged by coalition forces, as convoys delivering aid and warehouses storing aid are attacked by airstrikes. The plight of humanitarian groups in Yemen is likely to continue in the near future, based on the Saudi government’s recent letter to the United Nations and aid agencies operating in Houthi-controlled territory, advising evacuation in order to guarantee their safety and security. This ominous message seems to forecast indiscriminate bombing in the near future.

The aftermath of a suicide bombing outside of the Presidential Palace in Aden, Yemen that killed seven people. ISIS has utilized the security vacuum in Yemen to increase its presence there.

The aftermath of a suicide bombing outside of the Presidential Palace in Aden, Yemen that killed seven people. ISIS has utilized the security vacuum in Yemen to increase its presence there.

One does not need to think hard about the violations of international humanitarian law such actions would entail. The Fourth Geneva Convention requires that states “allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores”. Urging aid groups, such as the ICRC and MSF, to evacuate Houthi-controlled areas implies that they do not plan on living up to this provision. The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is considered settled state practice and has obtained the status of customary international law; however, the Saudi government’s letter indicates that they cannot ensure the protection of aid workers, meaning that they are not planning precision strikes against military targets. A panel of experts appointed by the United Nations Security Council documented 119 previous coalition airstrikes that could qualify as violations of international humanitarian law. These cases involve strikes against “camps for internally displaced people and refugees; civilian gatherings, including weddings; civilian vehicles, including buses; civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques; markets, factories and food storage warehouses.”

The United States has provided tacit support to a military campaign that has nearly decimated a nation. From all angles, becoming involved in this campaign was a mistake. However, American support remains largely due to a continued capitulation to Saudi demands, following a growing presence of the Houthis on its southern border, which they claim to be a proxy of Iran. The reality of the Iranian-Houthi connection and the threat it posed to Saudi territorial integrity prior to the campaign is not fully known, however, given that this is the most popular reasoning for American involvement, it remains insufficient for rationalizing such actions.

Immense damage has already been done to the people of Yemen, damage that will take many decades to mend. However, if the United States and President Obama are interested in protecting their core interests, repairing a damaged legacy, upholding international law, or promoting human rights, they must pull their support from the GCC-led campaign in Yemen.

Alan Williams is an M.A. candidate at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University. His research interests include civil society activism in the post-uprising Middle East, Islam and Politics, and freedom of expression.