US Imperialism Driving Millions to Flee Their Homes World Over

Stephanie Weatherbee Brito | 

21 Jun 2024

• 
  

The intensification of existing violent conflicts and emergence of new ones have caused a significant increase in the number of forcibly displaced people.

Sudanese refugees in Chad. Over 10 million people have been forcibly displaced in over a year of war in Sudan. Photo: Wikimedia commons

On this year’s World Refugee Day – June 20 – we must collectively reckon with the fact that more than 117 million people are victims of forced displacement. From Palestine to Sudan, Yemen to Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of Congo to Myanmar, the specter of violence casts its long shadow across the world and results in the tragedy of death and displacement that we have become all too familiar with. According to the Armed Conflict Location and Events Data (ACLED) Conflict Index, the world is becoming more violent, as is synthesized by the fact that one in six people are estimated to have been exposed to conflict in 2024. This marks, according to ACLED, a 22% increase in political violence incidents in the past five years and begs the question, “Why is war becoming the norm around the world?”

To understand the expansion of war and violent conflict in recent years, it is necessary to look at global factors rather than focus exclusively on the causes of each conflict. When we look at the bigger picture, we find an increasingly unequal world with a burgeoning arms market and failing global governance structures. These factors are all connected to the structural crisis of capitalism and the US imperialist project which has reacted to its decline with increased aggression.

Over several decades, US actions have contributed to a state of global disorder, linked to a broader agenda aimed at establishing and maintaining unipolarity. Since the 1970s, the United States has increasingly pursued a foreign policy marked by unilateral actions and strategies designed to further its interests, often without regard for their impact on other actors, including some of its allies.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the US ruling class became convinced it had established a new unipolar order destined to endure indefinitely. Since then, the number of violent conflicts with US participation has increased and include: Panama (1989), Iraq (1990), Yugoslavia (1995), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (2014), Ukraine (2022), Palestine (2023). In some of these instances, the conflicts instigated by the United States have overflowed beyond borders, grown through the involvement of unpredictable militias, and resulted in chaos, violence, and a breakdown of state authority. This has often only led to further escalation of violence. In this way, the US effort to maintain unipolarity has heightened global conflict.

The United States has also dismantled any semblance of global governance aimed at preventing and resolving conflicts. The League of Nations (1919) and later the United Nations (1945) were established to foster peace and security by implementing a framework of international law to govern nations’ behavior. However, the US has consistently flouted these multilateral structures and international laws while shielding its close allies from repercussions for their transgressions. A significant example of this, marking a pivotal moment in undermining the rules-based order, is the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. This invasion, purportedly launched as a “preemptive” strike, lacked evidence of provocation and was based on false claims regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

By initiating a war that failed to meet internationally accepted justifications for conflict, the US set a precedent wherein the ability to wage war—coupled with control over media narratives to justify military actions—supersedes the obligation to justify military intervention under international law. This action by the United States undermined any notion of peace and security within a rules-based system. Following the largely unchallenged war in Iraq, the US proceeded to wage wars explicitly aimed at asserting its dominance and control. The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya epitomizes these overt attempts to dismantle and intimidate those who defy or oppose US hegemony.

Producers of weapons and war

US imperialism relies heavily on the unparalleled military dominance it has built and maintained over decades. To this end, military spending by the United States has steadily increased. Currently, the gigantic military machine commanded by the US is funded by USD 1.537 trillion (counting only US spending) and USD 2.13 trillion (including the expenditure by US allies). In percentages, the US-led military bloc is responsible for 74.3% of military spending globally. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the world’s five top arms-producing and military service companies, Lockheed Martin Corp., Raytheon Technologies, Northrop Grumman Corp., Boeing and General Dynamics Corp, are of US origin.

The US is both indirectly – by building its incredible stockpile of weapons – and directly – by producing a significant amount of the arms circling the world today – responsible for the vast amount of weapons in the world today – weapons which are instrumental to perpetuating and escalating conflicts.

The existence of readily available arms has the effect of fueling disputes that may not have escalated were weapons unavailable. This was seen in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, where age-old differences between groups that had co-existed in relative peace for decades became bloody conflicts between tribal leaders and religious groups, due to the availability of guns and the use of these distinct groups as proxies by the US and its rivals.

As one conflict ends, its weapons quickly travel to neighboring countries, opening up new war fronts. According to the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the “excessive accumulation and wide availability [of small arms] may aggravate political tension, often leading to more lethal and longer-lasting violence”.

Since the US project for global hegemony was inaugurated in 1945, the US has staged military interventions in over a dozen countries. Afghanistan alone was targeted by 81,638 bombs or missiles by the US and its allies between 2001 and 2021. Other countries such as Vietnam, Somalia, Laos, Kuwait, Grenada, Yemen, and dozens of others have also suffered mass destruction and devastation under US-led military interventions.

According to the global trends report of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) there has been a steady increase in the number of forcibly displaced persons yearly. In 2023 at least 27.2 million people were forced to flee, amounting to a total of 117.3 million which remain displaced, and constituting an 8% increase from the previous year. The UNHCR reports that the numbers of conflict-related fatalities are closely correlated with the number of people displaced each year. The three countries with the largest numbers of forced displacement are all currently embroiled in armed conflict: Sudan, Palestine, and Myanmar.

Economic siege as war

But bombs are not the only means the US has to advance its agenda; it has also taken advantage of its power over the global economic system to coerce unruly nations into towing the Washington line.

Coercive and unilateral measures, or sanctions, are widely used by the US to impoverish, starve, and weaken its enemies. Currently, the US has unilaterally imposed these measures on approximately 39 nations and territories. Sanctions are war by another name, as the outcomes of these result in civilian loss of life at a scale comparable to war.

Through both military interventions and economic sanctions, the United States has shown its willingness to coerce any nation deviating from its interests. This has fostered a global environment where nations vie for power and influence. The US’s propensity to invade and punish perceived adversaries has spurred countries to bolster their military and geopolitical capabilities to safeguard their sovereignty in a world marked by violence and conflict, saturated with weaponry and lacking effective mechanisms to ensure peace.

The outcome of the US hegemonic project has been a world of constant and endless wars, whether these involve the US directly or not. Struggles for control of land and resources by diverging factions quickly escalate to armed conflict due to the readily available weapons and the willing funding of regional powers looking to build their geopolitical force. This is essentially what is happening in Sudan today, where the conflict has resulted in more than ten million displaced persons. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces serves to thwart the democratic process the people have been struggling for since 2018, as rival military groups struggle to control the country and its resources.

Furthermore, the proliferation of conflicts contributes to the normalization of violent conflict itself. As we are exposed to ever-increasing numbers of civilian casualties, refugee camps, and the widespread devastation of cities, our response to warfare becomes passive and minimal.

Instead, our response must be expressed in political action that addresses the root causes of the permanent state of war in which we live. Only by countering US imperialism, its disregard for international institutions, and its enormous military machine can we end the state of widespread violence and conflict that haunts humanity – and address the root of the refugee crisis that is felt around the world.

Stephanie Weatherbee Brito is part of the International Peoples Assembly (IPA). 

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

 

World Economy Seeing Notable Diffusion of Production

Prabhat Patnaik | 18 Jun 2024

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The big bourgeoisie and the elite in the Global South now find themselves on the same side of the dividing line as metropolitan capital.

There has been a significant diffusion of production occurring in the world economy. Many call this phenomenon a shift from a US-led world economy to a “multipolar world economy”, but no matter what one thinks of this description, the fact of diffusion is indubitable.

In 1994, for instance, the G-7 countries (the US, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and Canada) produced 45.3% of world output while the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, together with new members Iran, the UAE, Egypt and Ethiopia) produced 18.9%, By 2022, however, the ratios had become 29.3% and 35.2%, respectively. (These are World Bank figures quoted by economist Jeffrey Sachs).

Even if we take a somewhat larger grouping, namely, the US, the UK, Canada, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, its share in world output has fallen from 56% in 1994 to 39.5% in 2022. The refusal on the part of the US to recognise the ramifications of this diffusion, and its attempt to retain the power it enjoyed over the world in the old days, makes it extremely aggressive vis-à-vis Russia, China, Iran and others. Indeed, its aggressiveness is pushing the world into dangerous military confrontations.

This diffusion of production has no doubt been vastly aided by the emergence of socialism. Not only was the fact of decolonisation itself aided by the existence of socialism, but the building up of domestic skills, technological ability, infrastructure and productive capacity in post-colonial societies occurred initially under the aegis of dirigiste regimes that sustained themselves against Western hostility only through significant Soviet assistance.

Later, of course, after the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the end of Third World dirigisme, this process of diffusion was carried forward by international flows of capital-in-production that were facilitated by the neoliberal global order, but the prerequisites for such flows had in many major instances been created by the dirigiste regimes. The diffusion of production that is occurring at present to countries outside of the US-led bloc, is occurring under the aegis of capitalism (China, of course, is a separate case).

The question that arises is: in what sense can we talk of imperialism in the present context? The term imperialism has been associated with a dichotomy in the world economy, between a developed metropolis and an underdeveloped periphery; if this dichotomy is getting obliterated, if countries that belonged to the periphery are now witnessing rates of output growth even faster than the metropolitan countries themselves, then how can we still talk of imperialism?

The reality seems, on the contrary, to point toward a “convergence” among countries, where countries that belonged to the Global South are now catching up with those of the Global North, and, what is more, doing so (again except China) under the capitalist mode of production itself. Capitalism is no longer the culprit that is perpetuating a division of the world into a developed and an under-developed segment; it can no longer, therefore, be accused of imperialism. The question arises: is this correct?

First of all, while diffusion is unmistakable, any talk of “convergence” is far-fetched. This is so partly because the phenomenon of diffusion itself should not be exaggerated. The countries that have witnessed such diffusion are still few in number, and many of them may well experience reversals of fortune in the days to come; this would happen because the crisis of neoliberalism is catching them in debt-traps that would entail “fiscal austerity”, domestic deflation, and hence economic stagnation and recession.

History bears ample testimony to such reversals, which have been particularly pervasive for mineral-rich countries. Myanmar is a classic example of a country that was once considered to be on the threshold of prosperity but is now listed among the “least developed countries”. In our own neighbourhood, we see countries retrogressing because of the burden of external debt.

The second reason why “convergence” is out of the question lies precisely in imperialism. To see this, we have to note a second phenomenon that characterises the world economy but which, instead of getting the attention it so obviously deserves, is sought to be camouflaged by organisations like the World Bank that emphasise only the fact of diffusion. This consists of the fact that during the neoliberal era when there has been a diffusion of activities from the Global North to the Global South under the aegis of capitalism, and the latter has on average shown a higher growth-rate of GDP compared with the former, there has simultaneously been an increase in the extent of nutritional deprivation in the latter. And if nutritional deprivation is taken to be reflective of overall deprivation, for which at the levels of income of the Global South there is plenty of evidence, then there has been an increase in the extent of absolute poverty.

No doubt the people of the South have benefited from the better roads, electricity and other infrastructure that has been built up; but their private consumption has suffered precisely during the period when socialism and socialism-supported relatively autonomous dirigiste regimes have collapsed and the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism established over the world economy.

Postulating “convergence”, therefore, is a misreading of the situation; all that one can say is that the dividing line that existed in the capitalist world between the metropolis and the periphery has now shifted geographically to within the periphery itself.

The big bourgeoisie and the elite in the Global South now find themselves on the same side of the dividing line as metropolitan capital. They are no longer on the same side as the people of the Global South, as was generally the case during the anti-colonial struggle.

The term imperialism, however, was never meant to refer to a geographical divide; it referred to the coercion exercised by the capitalist mode of production in its surroundings. Its point of departure in other words was always political economy not geographical boundaries. It is worth recapitulating some points of this political economy.

The capitalist mode of production came of age with the Industrial Revolution which occurred in the cotton textile industry in Britain. But Britain can grow no raw cotton at all. The very coming of age of the capitalist mode, therefore, was predicated upon its having access to a whole range of primary commodities which cannot be grown within its home base, either at all, or in sufficient quantities, or all the year around. These are typically grown instead by millions of peasants and petty producers in tropical and semi-tropical regions of the world that are, and have historically been, densely populated.

These regions are broadly co-terminus with the periphery; and even when capitalism spreads to these regions, both this local capitalism and the capitalism of the metropolis are still dependent on obtaining a growing supply of a range of primary commodities from these millions of non-capitalist producers at prices which are not merely non-increasing, but which have actually shown absolute decline in unit dollar terms for decades.

Even though the exchange value of these commodities is relatively low, which is a legacy of the drastic squeeze that has been imposed on the petty producers of these commodities over the years, and which creates the totally false impression that these commodities are quite unimportant for the system, capitalism simply cannot do without them as use-values. 

Now, obtaining the requisite supplies of such commodities, especially of tropical and semi-tropical agricultural goods from a land-mass that is more or less fully utilised already, would require little coercion if the petty producers located there undertook “land-augmenting” (that is, land-yield-raising) practices and innovations. But such innovations and practices, whether irrigation, or research into and popularisation of high-yielding seed varieties, typically require substantial State effort, which capitalism, especially neoliberal capitalism, frowns upon. It does not want the State to be engaged in any activity that promotes the interests of anyone other than international capital and its local allies, the corporate-financial oligarchy of the Global South itself. It certainly does not wish the State to promote the interests of the peasants and petty producers, which is why “land-augmenting” measures are eschewed and the requisite supplies of primary commodities are obtained through compressing local incomes, and hence local demand of such commodities, within the Global South. Such compression is impossible without, at the very least, implicit coercion.

The decline in per capita foodgrain production in the Global South, and the even sharper decline in per capita foodgrain availability (owing to the diversion in recent years of foodgrains toward bio-fuels) are a consequence of this coercion, of which the observed nutritional deprivation is a manifestation. The diffusion of production to the Global South, therefore, in no way obviates the phenomenon of imperialism.

 

Three Lessons I Learned on My Visit to Cuba

Amanda Yee | 19 Jun 2024

• 
  
• 
  

The Cuban revolution offers key lessons for progressive people in the United States about how to organize society in a way that favors the majority, and not an elite few.

Photo: Gerardo Hernandez Nordelo

Last month, I went to Cuba as part of a 20-person delegation to deliver USD 60,000 in critical life-saving cancer medications and medical supplies to two pediatric hospitals there. This delegation was organized by Hatuey Project, a volunteer-run organization that regularly brings medical and humanitarian aid to Cuba. As part of the 10-day trip, we met with representatives of different Cuban organizations, institutions, and even members of Parliament. Through these exchanges, we learned about how the people of Cuba are engaged in its ongoing revolutionary process, their project of building socialism, and the impacts of US policy on everyday life.

Here are three key lessons I drew from our delegation.

1. All of Cuban society has been impacted by the US blockade

The US blockade on Cuba, in place since the 1960s, is an act of economic warfare. The political motivations behind it have been clear since the very beginning: to make life so miserable on the island that the Cuban people will direct their frustrations against the Communist Party and overthrow it, making way for US business interests to take hold again. This has been US policy toward Cuba for over 60 years.

As representatives we spoke to emphasized, there is no sector of society that the blockade does not touch. Conditions are now worse than ever: The blockade has led to extreme shortages in food, flour, and fuel. Electrical blackouts are becoming more and more frequent.

Meanwhile, farmers cannot grow food on a mass scale, because the blockade denies them the pesticides, fertilizers, and equipment to do so. Many have relied on countries such as Mexico donating tractors, hoes, and other farm supplies.

When receiving our medical delivery, a doctor at a children’s hospital in Santa Clara relayed to us that medicine is what is most needed and yet most affected by the blockade. The blockade not only prevents crucial medications from reaching the island, but also the raw materials and science and technology needed to produce them. And as the most effective cancer treatments are often US-produced and doctors do not have access to those, they often seek alternative treatments that are not as effective. This has an obvious impact on survival rate.

The doctors also lamented that fuel scarcity makes it extremely difficult for families of patients to travel back and forth from their homes to the hospital. On top of that, food scarcity creates even more hardship for these families. As we came to understand, the blockade doesn’t just affect individual things in isolation; it creates overlapping crises with which everyday Cubans must contend.

This is the cruel price that the Cuban people continue to pay for their socialist project.

2. Cuba shows us that another world is possible

Cuba is an example that a future exists beyond capitalism, and that future is worth fighting for.

Cuba’s government represents a democracy virtually unknown to us in the United States. On our last day, we met with several members of Parliament, or the National Assembly of People’s Power—the country’s highest political body. Unlike in the US, these government representatives do not receive a salary nor do they represent any groups with certain political interests. Nor do they have election campaigns or receive campaign funding.

As one member of the Assembly told us, “Policy is not a business. It’s a responsibility of the revolutionary project we have built.”

Popular consultation between government officials and community members is an important democratic principle in Cuba. Every new potential law is debated and refined through this process, including the new Families Code passed in 2022. The high level of political participation among the Cuban people can likely be attributed to their faith in this democratic consultative process.

And in spite of the blockade, Cuba mobilizes what scarce resources it has in service of its people, especially its most vulnerable. We were constantly in awe with how much Cuba did with so little. At the hospitals we visited, our delegation—accustomed to navigating the byzantine for-profit US healthcare and insurance systems—was immensely impressed at the dedication of staff to provide comprehensive and quality care to patients despite the extreme hardships brought by the blockade.

We also visited the Quisicuaba Agricultural Camp in Artemisa Province, an assisted living center for the homeless, as well as the elderly who need support in their later years. Since landlordism was abolished in Cuba after the revolution, the conditions which drive homelessness there are different than in the US In Cuba, homelessness is usually caused by mental health issues, alcoholism, or loss of family support, rather than eviction.

Quisicuaba provides residents with accommodation, clinical and psychological treatment, three meals a day, along with workshops and daily programming. There is a farm on the camp where, together, residents grow bananas, sweet potatoes and cassava, along with livestock. The camp fosters a community setting among residents, and its primary goal is protection and rehabilitation in order for them to be reincorporated back into society. Assisted living centers like Quisicuaba are subsidized by their provincial governments.

Meanwhile in the US, over half a million people experience homelessness with no government support, and faced with the substandard conditions of most homeless shelters, they often choose to remain on the streets rather than seek refuge. This is an unconscionable reality of living in the US—our government spends billions of dollars on war and to bankroll Israel’s genocide in Gaza while homelessness skyrockets, people can’t afford basic necessities, and infrastructure crumbles.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Cuba shows us that another world is possible, one that centers humanity and dignity of life over profit.

3. We must firmly reject despair in fighting for this new world

Yet despite the hardships created by the blockade, we were struck by how warm the Cuban people were toward us, the pride they exuded when talking about their revolution, and their steadfast commitment not to kneel to US policy. One of my favorite parts of the delegation was a trip to the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, a research institute in Havana.

The scientist we spoke to there recalled that one of the proudest moments of his life was contributing to Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccine. They named that vaccine “Abdala,” after a poem written by Cuban national hero José Martí in which the titular character defends his homeland of Nubia against Spanish occupiers. Martí wrote that poem during Cuba’s Ten Years’ War against Spain. At the forefront of people’s minds is their struggle for sovereignty and national liberation, always.

The scientist told us, “When your idea is correct, you must fight to the end.”

This was a key takeaway for me as someone living in the US, especially given the level of cynicism and pessimism among some sectors of the Left here. The US blockade has now been in place for over 60 years. Most Cubans alive now have lived their entire lives under blockade. If the Cuban people remain so determined to defend the gains of their revolution, if they maintain their sense of revolutionary optimism even under the most severe of conditions, what excuse do we have to feel despair about what we are up against? About fighting US imperialism?

I believe that type of pessimism is a luxury afforded to us, but we must reject it. Despair is a shirking of our collective responsibility as those living in the heart of empire. Our own government has robbed the Cuban people of so much over the course of centuries, from occupation to the current blockade. It is our responsibility to combat the vicious policies of the US. Only when US imperialism is overturned will countries like Cuba be allowed to breathe and develop to their full potential. We do this first and foremost through getting organized, so that we can build capacity to weaken imperialism from within. That is a responsibility we all share as those living in the belly of the beast. We owe it to people in places like Cuba.

Amanda Yee is a journalist and organizer based out of Brooklyn. She is the managing editor of Liberation News, and her writing has appeared in Monthly Review Online, The Real News Network, CounterPunch, and Peoples Dispatch. Follow her on X @catcontentonly.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

Brazil: Feminists Mobilise Against Bill That Equates Abortion With Murder

Peoples Dispatch | 

• 
  
• 
  

The Chamber of Deputies surprised many by pushing forward the discussion on a bill that equates abortion with murder and prohibits abortion even in cases of rape.

Abortion rights demonstrators mobilize in Brasília (Photo: Matheus Alves / Mídia NINJA)

On Wednesday, June 12, Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies approved the urgent discussion of a bill that equates abortion with murder. Officially named Bill 1904/2024, it will now be voted on by the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies, without first going through the relevant committees.

The bill could result in prison sentences as long as 20 years for those who administer abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira, of the Progressive Party, put the matter on the agenda without informing the federal deputies and without announcing the bill’s number. He asked Pastor Henrique Vieira of the left-wing Socialism and Freedom Party about the position of party members on the matter under consideration, but he did not respond. Lira considered the urgency of the matter approved in symbolic voting, in which each deputy’s vote on the electronic panel isn’t recorded, which lasted just 23 seconds. In general, symbolic voting occurs when there is already agreement among parliamentarians on the matter on the agenda.

The bill adds articles to the Penal Code to make the penalties for simple homicide the same as those for abortions carried out after 22 weeks of gestation, even in cases where the practice is legally allowed. The text also prohibits abortion even in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, if there is fetal viability.  

At the time of the vote, there was no reaction in the plenary. On social media, however, members of the progressive spectrum attacked what they called Lira’s “maneuver”.

“Lira has just struck a blow against women’s rights. He approved an emergency request without even announcing the vote. The request allows voting on the bill that forces girls and women who suffer sexual violence to have the child of a rapist,” wrote Natália Bonavides of the Workers’ Party.

Congresswoman Sâmia Bomfim of the Socialism and Freedom Party also spoke out on social media. “Using a maneuver, Lira approved the urgency of the Child Pregnancy Bill, so the bill can go to a voting at any time in the plenary,” she posted.

The Nem Presa Nem Morta (Either Jailed nor Killed, in a rough translation) Campaign, which defends the decriminalization of abortion in the country, called Lira’s stance “cowardly.”

The National Front for the Legalization of Abortion described the urgent approval as “dishonest and undemocratic.”

Protesters across Brazil denounce “Child Pregnancy Bill”

On Thursday night, many Brazilian cities saw feminist protests against Bill 1904/2024, dubbed the Child Pregnancy Bill for the impact it could have on young girls who are victims of sexual violence.

The Front Against the Criminalization of Women and For the Legalization of Abortion led protests in 17 Brazilian cities and engaged in mobilizations in many other places.

Hundreds gathered at the Republic’s National Museum in Brasília for the protest. According to Thaísa Magalhães, Women’s Secretary of Brazil’s Central Workers’ Union of the Federal District (CUT-DF, in Portuguese), the protests show that women listened to the call of many feminist and social organizations. “Women expressed their solidarity with the urgency of going to the streets to say no to the Child Pregnancy Bill,” said Thaíssa.

According to Brazilian pedagogue Leila Rebouças, the discussion of this agenda in the Chamber of Deputies represents a negotiation over women’s bodies. She also points out that in election years, such as 2024, when municipal elections will be held, conservative agendas are, once again, debated in Congress. “This is yet another strategy to put these agendas forward to negotiate votes,” she said.

In São Paulo, the demonstration took place at the São Paulo Museum of Art (MASP, in Portuguese) on Paulista Avenue, and brought together hundreds of demonstrators. According to Ana Paula, an activist with the National Front Against the Criminalization of Women and For the Legalization of Abortion, the demonstrations are women’s response to the attack on a right already legally guaranteed.

“It was a moment of revolt for women and all pregnant women about the urgency for the Bill 1904/2024, which was done without any decent consultation with parliament, because it wasn’t even announced. In 23 seconds, Lira has ruined the lives of thousands of girls and women who have access to a legal right guaranteed by the Penal Code, which dates back to 1940: abortion in cases of sexual violence and risk to life. This is truly revolting and led to this movement,” she says.

At Cinelândia, downtown Rio de Janeiro, people gathered to defend the right to legal abortion.

This article was based on two reports originally published in Brasil de Fato.

15 Jun 2024

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

 

‘Jailing of Parvez, Meraj has Made Human Rights Work Very Difficult in Kashmir’

KASHMIR IS INDIA'S GAZA

Arif Ayaz Parrey | 20 Jun 2024

• 
  
• 
  

Since August 2019, and even more so since human rights defender Khurram Parvez’s arrest, it has become incredibly hard to get any systematic information about human rights violations in J&K, FIDH’s Juliette Rousselot tells The Leaflet.

Today, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), Martin Ennals Awards, CIVICUS, Front Line Defenders, The Observatory, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Kashmir Law and Justice Project have organised a webinar to raise awareness about Khurram Parvez’s arbitrary and prolonged detention, highlight his contributions to the human rights movement, and rally support for his immediate and unconditional release.

Khurram, the most prominent human rights defender of his generation from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), was arrested on charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on November 22, 2021.

Khurram’s house was raided in connection with alleged funding of secessionist and separatist activities in 2020.

His arrest was seen as part of the larger crackdown on human rights defenders and journalists in J&K in the lead-up to and aftermath of the deoperationalisation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution on August 5, 2019.

Khurram’s house was raided in connection with alleged funding of secessionist and separatist activities in 2020.

Two months prior to the raid, the Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Societies (JKCCS) released a report Kashmir Internet Siege: an ongoing assault on digital rights, which traced how the disruption of the internet led to the denial of many human rights to the people of J&K.

Khurram is a founding member of the JKCCS, one of the only functional organisations in J&K that documents human rights abuses by Indian armed forces and militants belonging to various local and Pakistan-supported outfits.

Khurram is chairman of the Philippine-based AFAD and has been named one of the 100 most influential people of 2022 by Time magazine. He was the recipient of the 2006 Reebok Human Rights Award. He has also been a laureate of the 2023 Martin Ennals Award.

He has been involved in decades of investigative reporting highlighting the impunity enjoyed by Indian armed forces in J&K because of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990.

The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), of which Khurram is coordinator, is a founding member of the AFAD.

As per the organisers of the webinar, “Khurram’s ongoing detention underscores the severe restrictions on civil liberties in Kashmir and reflects a broader strategy to suppress dissent and visibility of human rights violations in the region.”

The Leaflet spoke with the deputy director (Asia) of FIDH, Juliette Rousselot, about Khurram’s incarceration and its reflection and implications in the larger human rights situation in Kashmir and the wider world.

Can you tell us a little about the work of FIDH, its history and the way in which it engages with human rights?

FIDH is one of the oldest human rights organisations in the world: it was founded over 100 years ago, in 1922. We federate 188 human rights organisations around the world and work with our member organisations to defend all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Our members are the beating heart of FIDH: they direct our strategy and our actions and are at the center of everything we do.

How did FIDH come to form an association with the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (APDP) and Khurram Parvez? When did it begin and what is the work undertaken by the two human rights defender organisations?

JKCCS and APDP have had links to FIDH and some of our members for a long time, through other networks and connections— including for instance AFAD.

Khurram is chairman of the Philippine-based AFAD and has been named one of the 100 most influential people of 2022 by Time magazine.

We started officially working together in 2018, and APDP became an official FIDH member during our congress in 2019 in Taiwan. Having a member organisation in Kashmir made a lot of sense for FIDH, as it allowed us to really deepen our understanding of the human rights violations in the region and to be able to support APDP and JKCCS to raise awareness of these violations.

We published a number of briefing notes and statements together, highlighting some of the key violations that were occurring at the time in J&K. The abrogation of J&K’s statehood in August 2019 and the ensuing months-long internet shutdown significantly impacted a lot of the plans we had for joint activities.

How does FIDH view the human rights situation in J&K? What were the reasons behind including APDP as a member organisation? How has the work of JKCCS and APDP helped FIDH understand the situation in J&K?

The human rights situation in J&K is dire. This is obviously nothing new: human rights organisations in J&K had been documenting serious human rights abuses for decades: enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, severe curbs on freedom of expression and the press … the list goes on.

Having active human rights organisations on the ground was crucial for FIDH and others to really be able to understand the scope and nature of the violations, but also the root causes and the political dynamics on the ground, especially since the Indian government has not given international organisations or even the United Nations access to J&K to conduct their own monitoring.

The incredibly detailed, in-depth monitoring and documentation of human rights violations that JKCCS and APDP have done over the years, such as the 2019 report on torture— if one were to cite just one example— is really what has permitted us to convey to a broader audience the extent to which impunity had taken hold and to refocus the discussion in international policy circles on human rights, and on the people who are impacted by State policies.

What has been the impact of Khurram Parvez and his colleague Irfan Mehraj’s arrest on the Kashmir component of FIDH work?

Since August 2019, and even more so since Khurram’s arrest, it has become incredibly hard to get any systematic information about violations. We are no longer talking about ‘shrinking civic space’ but rather ‘shrunk civic space’; civil society and the media have been threatened and intimidated into silence.

The consequences of speaking out are grave. We know violations are ongoing, but the complete repression of civic space has made it impossible to get a complete picture of what is going on. We still track violations and legal developments in the region and alert the international community, but it is incredibly hard. And, of course, a lot of our attention has turned to trying to secure Khurram’s and Irfan’s release.

FIDH has intervened in numerous human rights situations and conflicts across the world. How does one understand the work of JKCCS and APDP in this wider context as it draws inspiration from and at the same time contributes to the ongoing movement for the application of international law, justice and against impunity?

Regardless of the complexity of any given situation, or of the circumstances leading to human rights violations, local human rights organisations are a cornerstone of the fight against impunity.

This is certainly the case for JKCCS and APDP, even in the face of widespread impunity and a complete absence of accountability for human rights violations committed by the Indian authorities. It is in these times of need though, that we need to stand in solidarity with them and their fight. Conversely, there is a need to learn from other situations of grave violations of international law.

Unfortunately, India is far from being the only country in the world that uses anti-terrorism legislation and the excuse of conflict to restrict human rights organisations and silence human rights defenders.

Domestic laws are passed to justify these actions, to give them a veneer of legality— despite completely flying in the face of international human rights law.

The Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), of which Khurram is coordinator, is a founding member of the AFAD.

The commendable work done by the JKCCS and APDP— and by extension Khurram— in this regard over the years work has been exemplary in its use of international law to reframe the situation, to refocus the discussion on the illegality of these actions, despite all of the justifications made by the Indian authorities under domestic law. There is much to be learned from this framing of the situation.

What are the interventions FIDH hopes to make in the upcoming 56th session of the Human Rights Council (June 18 to July 12, 2024) and at the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR) ahead of the review of India’s fifth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)?

India’s upcoming review by the UN Human Rights Committee is a much-welcome opportunity to shed some light on India’s disastrous human rights record and the extent to which the country is failing to live up to its obligations under the ICCPR.

We have submitted a report— with OMCT and Front Line Defenders— for that review, where we shed light on the systematic repression of human rights defenders and civil society under incumbent Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi’s leadership, including by using anti-terrorism legislation such as the UAPA.

The judicial persecution of human rights defenders is a clear violation of the ICCPR, and we are confident that the Human Rights Committee will echo this.

The question will be whether India is willing to listen to constructive feedback and change its practices.

It is also crucial for the UN Human Rights Council to take the human rights situation in J&K more seriously. In 2018 and 2019, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released scathing reports on the human rights situation in Kashmir— but, unfortunately, the Human Rights Council failed to act and follow up on these reports.

Member states of the Human Rights Council have a responsibility to ensure that human rights in Kashmir are not pushed aside because the situation is seen as too complicated politically.

The UN and human rights groups including FIDH have called for the release of Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj. Can you share the reasons for doing so?

We are calling for their release because we truly believe that they are human rights defenders and that they are being detained and charged simply for documenting human rights violations that the Indian government does not want brought to light. This is not just us saying it: last year, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opined that Khurram’s detention was indeed arbitrary.

“We are no longer talking about ‘shrinking civic space’ but rather ‘shrunk civic space’ in Kashmir,” FIDH’s Juliette Rousselot.

But looking beyond personal motivation to see them released, it would certainly be in India’s best interest to release them and all the other HRDs currently being detained on politically-motivated charges. If India really wants to maintain its reputation as the world’s biggest democracy, then it is high time it also starts to rebuild the rule of law in the country, restore faith in the judiciary, and respect its international legal obligations.

India is certainly on a downward trajectory when it comes to the protection of human rights but this trajectory can be reversed with political will and respect for the law.

Why does FIDH believe that the stringent Indian law UAPA must not be applied against Khurram Parvez, Irfan Mehraj and the work of JKCCS and APDP?

The UAPA is being systematically used to arbitrarily detain human rights defenders and silence critics. The 2019 amendments to the law only made it easier for the authorities to use it against human rights defenders, by increasing the scope of the UAPA and enabling the authorities to designate individuals and not just organisations as terrorists.

The definition of “unlawful activity” under the law is so broad that it allows authorities to go after anyone who the authorities deem to be a thorn in their side. This is a law that urgently needs to be repealed or amended to bring it in line with India’s international legal obligations.

India is certainly on a downward trajectory when it comes to the protection of human rights but this trajectory can be reversed with political will and respect for the law.

Unfortunately, the UAPA is only one of the ways in which the Indian government instrumentalises anti-terrorism discourse to go after human rights defenders. Anyone who disagrees with the government’s policies is called secessionist, or anti-national, or accused of sedition.

Arif Ayaz Parrey is Editor, The Leaflet.

Courtesy: The Leaflet