By External Source
Jun 4 2024 (IPS-Partners)

Ecosystems are being threatened all over the world.

From forests to drylands.

From farmlands to lakes.

Drought and desertification are threatening freshwater and soil ecosystems the most.

These are the connective tissues that makes life on Earth possible.

Drylands are areas which face great water scarcity.

They cover 41% of the Earth’s land surface and 78% of the world’s rangelands.

They also generate 44% of global crops – feeding half of the world’s livestock.

They support the lives and livelihoods of more than 2 billion people.

Approximately 1.4 billion livelihoods worldwide are directly reliant on access to fresh water.

Yet, up to 40% of the planet’s land is now degraded, affecting half the world’s population.

Every five seconds, the equivalent of one football pitch of soil is eroded.

Yet, it takes 1,000 years to generate 3 centimeters of topsoil.

The number duration of droughts has increased by 29% since 2000.

By 2050, droughts will affect 75% of the world’s population.

Land restoration is a key pillar of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

It is a rallying call for the protection and revival of ecosystems all around the world.

That’s why World Environment Day 2024 focuses on land restoration, halting desertification and building drought resilience.

We cannot turn back time, but we can grow forests, revive water sources, and bring back soils.

We are the generation that can make peace with land.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 4 2024 – When Abdulrahman Al-Khalidi fled Turkey for Bulgaria after his fellow Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, he thought he was heading for safety and sanctuary in the European Union.

But, he says, he instead would end up facing the exact opposite.

“When I came to Bulgaria, I thought I was going into a European asylum system, but what I signed up to was actually a slavery contract. Where I am now, they can just treat you like animals,” he tells IPS.

Al-Khalidi is speaking from the Busmantsi migrant detention center outside the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, where he has been held since November 2021.

He says that since arriving there, he has been subjected to a “nightmare” of inexplicable detention in appalling conditions and numerous breaches of his rights, including a police beating. He has tried to take his own life and says his mental health has suffered dramatically during his time there.

“I am being treated unfairly and illegally. What is happening to me doesn’t make sense to me or to anyone else. It has been very difficult for me mentally here. Every day I wait for someone to come and tell me I am free to go, but it never happens,” he says.

Al-Khalidi, a political activist and a known dissident, arrived in Bulgaria in October 2021.

A campaigner for human rights and advocate for democratic reforms, along with prominent Saudi figures such as Khashoggi, he left his home country in the wake of mass arrests following the Arab Spring. He sought refuge abroad, first traveling to Egypt, then staying in Qatar and Turkey, where he worked as a journalist writing critical articles about the Saudi regime, before heading to the EU to apply for asylum.

He was detained crossing the border into Bulgaria and claimed asylum. But it was denied by Bulgaria’s Refugee Agency, which decided Saudi authorities had taken steps to democratize society and rejected his claim of asylum on humanitarian grounds.

This was despite Al-Khalidi’s protests, and warnings from human rights groups that he would be in serious danger if he were to be returned to Saudi Arabia.

“If I get sent back to Saudi Arabia, I will 100 percent be killed or will be ‘disappeared’ in prison,” he says.

He launched an appeal against the decision but this was rejected by a lower court. He then took his case to the Supreme Court, which last month (APR) ruled that the State Refugee Agency must reconsider his asylum request. It said the reason given for initially rejecting it—a recommendation from Bulgaria’s National Security Agency that Al-Khalidi posed a security risk to Bulgaria—had not been substantiated.

A decision from the State Refugee Agency on his asylum is expected within months.

Human rights campaigners say they see no reason why it should not be granted.

“I have never come across a case of a refugee that is as clear as that of Abdulrahman’s,” Victor Lilov, member of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, told IPS.

Al-Khalidi himself says that he has lost faith in the asylum process in Bulgaria.

“I don’t trust the authorities anymore,” he says.

His mistrust comes after spending the last two and a half years fighting not just to have his asylum request properly dealt with, but also against what he and rights activists believe is his unfair and, following a recent court ruling, unlawful continued detention at the Busmantsi centre.

Under Bulgarian migration regulations, asylum seekers should only be put in closed centers, such as the Busmantsi facility, as a temporary measure while their identity and the facts around their asylum application are established. They should not be held there solely on the grounds that they have claimed asylum. There is, however, a provision under which a migrant can be held in closed facilities if they are deemed a threat to national security.

Al-Khalidi has been in the Busmantsi centre since just a few weeks after his initial arrest.

He initially lodged a legal complaint over his detention in 2022, but that was rejected by a lower court and he was ordered to remain detained at the centre.

He describes conditions there as appalling, with inadequate medical care, a lack of basic hygiene facilities, insect infestations causing infections and diseases, and that it is run “like a prison” with strict restrictions on movements and freedoms for those housed there.

He also claims that at the end of March, security officers at the facility attacked him after he offered food to others detained at the centre. He was taken to the toilets, where there are no cameras and repeatedly beaten and choked for an hour before being taken back to his room, where he was handcuffed to his bed for another two and a half hours.

He says his ordeal over the last few years has taken a huge mental and physical toll on him, which has only been worsened by what he says have been inexplicable decisions by Bulgarian authorities in his case.

In January of this year, the Supreme Court overturned the 2022 lower court ruling on his continued detention and ordered his immediate release. But it was blocked by the National Security Agency, again on the grounds that he presented a threat to national security.

Al-Khalidi denies posing any threat to national security and says he cannot understand why he remains at the detention centre.

“I don’t know what to do anymore. I can’t see how they can still keep me here,” he says.

Lilov said his continued detention was unlawful.

“The Supreme Court decision of January 18 to release Abdulrahman was immediate and non-appealable. The State Refugee Agency and the National Security Agency have so far refused to implement this decision, making his detention unlawful,” he said.

“This ‘accommodation’ centre for migrants is generally intended for those who have fully exhausted all procedures and have extradition orders and are waiting there for the appropriate transport. Only in exceptional cases does the law allow asylum seekers to be accommodated in closed places until the circumstances requiring their detention are no longer present.

“In the case of Abdulrahman, we have decisions of last resort from the Supreme Court saying that he should be released and that the State Refugee Agency should grant him asylum status. I really don’t understand the reasons behind the Bulgarian authorities’ persistence [to continue to detain him],” added Lilov.

Meanwhile, Al-Khalidi continues to face the threat of deportation to Saudi Arabia, despite the Supreme Court ruling.

On February 5, Al-Khalidi was served with a deportation order by the National Security Agency. He has appealed against this.

In response to questions from rights groups and local media about Al-Khalidi’s situation, the Interior Ministry has confirmed this order should not be enforced until a final ruling on his asylum status is made.

Human rights organisations campaigning for his release say Al-Khalidi’s deportation is likely to be in breach of international refugee conventions and Bulgaria’s international obligations on non-refoulement, given Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and documented treatment of political dissidents.

They say he would be at risk of arrest, torture, and potentially the death penalty for his political views and activism.

“The Saudi regime treats political dissidents in a very harsh way. If he is sent back, Abdulrahman will also face very harsh treatment,” said Lilov. “Bulgaria must give him asylum.”

The Bulgarian Interior Ministry did not respond to requests from IPS for comment.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Kingsley Ighobor
GENEVA, Jun 4 2024 – UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on countries to conclude by 2026 negotiations on a legally binding instrument to prohibit Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS).

In response, Sierra Leone in April 2024 hosted a conference of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) member states to discuss challenges associated with AWS.

In this interview with Africa Renewal’s Kingsley Ighobor, Sierra Leone’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Dr. Lansana Gberie, the chief organizer of the conference, on behalf of the Government of Sierra Leone, discusses the outcomes and the ramifications of AWS proliferation for Africa.

Here are excerpts:

Dr. Lansana Gberie, Sierra Leone’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva and the chief organizer of the conference on behalf of the Government of Sierra Leone.

Q: What exactly are Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS), and how are they different from conventional weapons?

Autonomous weapons are new, very potent weapons designed to select, target, and engage without any meaningful human intervention. The difference with conventional weapons is simple: the human factor.

Remember, the two atomic bombs that devastated Japanese cities during WWII were dropped by human beings who carefully selected the targets. They caused enormous carnage, but accountability could be easily assigned for their use.

Autonomous weapons make decisions to kill or destroy targets without a human being participating in the process. Accountability, and therefore reckoning, for such a grave decision becomes difficult.

Q: What are your views regarding the urgency expressed by the UN Secretary-General for international action on AWS?

That is a call that we fully support. As you know, Mr. Guterres made the call in a joint statement with Ms. Mirjana Spoljaric Egger, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), on October 5, 2023. He referred to lethal AWS as morally repugnant and politically unacceptable, calling for their prohibition under international law.

Q: Why should global attention be directed towards the proliferation of AWS?

There are ethical, legal, and practical reasons why the world must focus on this issue now. Machines and algorithms should not make life and death decisions, and this is what autonomous weapons are designed to do. This is ethically appalling.

There is also a fundamental legal aspect: if machines are to make life and death decisions in warfare, who can be held accountable for potential war crimes, extrajudicial killings, and unlawful use of weaponry?

Autonomous weapons systems present tremendous global security risks: they raise the risk of unintended escalation and flash wars, and they lower the threshold for waging war. They are easy to proliferate and could easily be used as weapons of mass destruction for targeted killings, by both state and non-state actors.

Q: What factors contribute to the rising popularity of AWS as military assets?

They are very convenient. Military powers are often risk-averse—they do not want to take large casualties themselves but would like to inflict them on their enemies. This is what AWS will do for them. They leave the actual target decisions to machines. That, too, is convenient.

Accountability for decisions that they set in place becomes difficult in a legal sense. Human beings must remain accountable for the conduct of wars, including targeting decisions. Autonomous weapons systems increase the risk of civilian casualties on a massive scale.

Q: How does the spread of AWS affect Africa?

We are a vulnerable region. Larger military powers are investing in technologies that reduce human control. These dynamics benefit weapons manufacturers and draw important resources away from peacebuilding and sustainable development. The use of AWS could increase the capacity of highly militarized countries to inflict violence with impunity.

By calling for a new international legally binding agreement on AWS, ECOWAS member states hope to prevent the escalation of military dominance by the most militarized countries.

Q: How might African countries prevent the spread of these weapons?

Following the UN Secretary-General’s call, there is now strong international support from over 115 states for starting negotiations on a treaty. The ECOWAS conference, held in Freetown on 17-18 April 2024 and hosted by President Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone, was a response to a UN General Assembly resolution on lethal autonomous weapons systems adopted on December 22, 2023. This resolution supports the Secretary-General’s call.

The communiqué issued at the end of the conference affirmed the region’s collective support for negotiations of a legally binding instrument to prohibit autonomous weapons without meaningful human control.

Q: How do events like the conference in Freetown contribute to the potential for an AWS treaty?

Significantly. the Freetown ECOWAS conference followed other regional conferences around the world focused on raising awareness of the problem and forging a common regional approach in support of a legally binding agreement on AWS. Costa Rica held one, and so did the Philippines. There was one in the Caribbean, held in Trinidad and Tobago.

Remember that not every ECOWAS member state is party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) or has participated in the global discussions around AWS. The Freetown conference brought these countries into that conversation.

Q: Why is Sierra Leone a leader in the advocacy efforts for a treaty on AWS?

As you know, Sierra Leone is a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. We are also a member of the African Union Peace and Security Council.

President Bio said at the opening of the conference in Freetown that Sierra Leone is deeply committed to safeguarding peace and security in our region. We understand the destabilizing effects of military conflicts that can last for generations. We have become a champion on global arms control and disarmament issues.

The President began his career as a military officer and was among the first batch of peacekeepers sent to Liberia amidst that country’s civil war in the early 1990s. He understands that if we ignore the issue of autonomous weapons in our backyard, we do so at our own peril.

Q: What are the main challenges and complexities involved in negotiating a legally binding instrument to regulate AWS, considering the diverse perspectives and interests of different countries?

All international treaties, particularly on arms, tend to be complex; and negotiations leading to them can be prolonged and difficult. We often hear that a treaty would be ineffective if the countries using AWS do not sign up to them. But with international law, accountability can be determined, whether states are parties or not.

That carries an important moral and practical weight. A majority of countries support a treaty on AWS. Let’s not forget that. But there are powerful countries and interests opposed to such negotiations even starting. That should not discourage the majority. We must all strive to avoid an arms race in this respect.

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);