By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 21 2024 – The United States—which has continued to use its veto power to block Palestine from UN membership —may be out-maneuvered by a growing new campaign by some UN member states planning to establish full political and diplomatic relations with Palestine outside the confines of the United Nations.

The latest recognitions of the Palestinian territory as a sovereign State are by Norway, Ireland, Spain and Slovenia, which comes after the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted — with 143 votes in favour to nine votes against- – to back Palestine’s bid to become a full-fledged member of the United Nations on last month.

But, as expected, the resolution before the Security Council was vetoed by the United States last month—and will continue to be vetoed.

Mercifully, the US does not have a veto power to prevent countries from recognizing Palestine as a sovereign nation state — even though it could threaten to cut off economic and military aid, particularly to developing nations.

“In the midst of a war, with tens of thousands killed and injured, we must keep alive the only alternative that offers a political solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike: Two states, living side by side, in peace and security,” Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said.

How many of the remaining 24 European Union (EU) member states will follow Ireland, Spain and Slovenia in establishing diplomatic relations with Palestine?

The 24 include: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS this underscores how, despite the Biden administration’s claims that it supports a two-state solution, it has worked hard to prevent the United Nations from recognizing Palestine.

In addition to vetoing the recent UN Security Council resolution admitted Palestine as a member and voting against the General Assembly resolution to upgrade its status, the United States was one of only two countries in the 47-member UN Human Rights Council to vote against a resolution in early April which “reaffirmed its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security.”

“It has been U.S. policy since 1990 to withdraw funding from any United Nations agency which grants Palestine full member status and the recently passed 2024 Appropriations bill promises to cut all U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority if “the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians,” he pointed out

The Biden administration and Congress have long taken the position that Palestinian statehood is only acceptable on terms voluntarily agreed to by Israel in bilateral negotiations.

“However, given how there have been no such negotiations since 2015 and the Israeli government categorically rules out allowing any kind of Palestinian state, this appears to simply be a way of continuing to deny Palestine’s right to self-determination”, declared Zunes.

Among the G20, nine countries Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey have recognized Palestine as a sovereign state.

China, one of the five permanent members of the Security Council has recognized the State of Palestine since 1988 and has declared that it supports Palestine’s bid for full UN membership.

Meanwhile, in a statement released June 3, a group of UN human rights experts say, “the State of Palestine was recognized by the vast majority of Member States of the United Nations”.

All States must follow the example of the 143 UN Member States, and recognise the State of Palestine, and use all political and diplomatic resources at their disposal to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the UN experts said.

“This recognition is an important acknowledgement of the rights of the Palestinian people and their struggles and suffering towards freedom and independence,” the experts said.

They insisted that Palestine must be able to enjoy full self-determination, including the ability to exist, determine their destiny and develop freely as a people with safety and security.
.
“This is a pre-condition for lasting peace in Palestine and the entire Middle East – beginning with the immediate declaration of a ceasefire in Gaza and no further military incursions into Rafah,” the experts said.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka, a former chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Palestine going back to the 1970s.

Dr Palitha Kohona, former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN, and until recently Ambassador to China, told IPS Sri Lanka has consistently backed the two-state solution to the situation involving Israel and Palestine and to bring peace to the Middle East.

Despite the elimination of the anti-Israeli leaders of Iraq (Saddam Hussein) and Libya (Muammar Gaddafi), the violent changes resulting from the Arab Spring, and the diplomatic efforts at reconciliation between Arab countries and Israel, the situation in the occupied territories remains as dire as ever, he said.

“Consistent with our position”, he pointed out, “Sri Lanka was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with Palestine with a Palestinian ambassador based in Colombo since 1975 whose costs are met by the Government of Sri Lanka”.

Sri Lanka maintains a diplomatic presence in Ramallah with a fully- fledged ambassador, and is also the chair of the “UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories”,

“During my period as Permanent Representative, we came under intense pressure from Israel to quit as chair of this Committee. Sri Lanka has consistently supported the call for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations,” declared Dr Kohona.

Ian Williams, President of the Foreign Press Association, told IPS the Coalition of the Appalled that supports Palestinian membership is more compelling than the US’s Coalition of “the willing” that the US dragooned to support its war in Iraq.

A vote on “recognizing” Palestine is as superfluous as a vote on accepting the gravity – it exists! It should be superfluous to counter the arguments of Israel and its supporters but en passant Israel itself has not had accepted boundaries since its admission.

Micronesia, the Marshalls and Palau, consistent supporters of Israel and the US have no real sovereignty over their foreign policy, while the US and UK fought hard to maintain “Kampuchean” membership of the UN when Pol Pot controlled a tent in Thailand across the border, said Williams, a former president of the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) and author of “The UN For Beginners”.

“And many of the Governments who took part in the wartime negotiations on the UN Charter were in exile from their occupied territory. This is not about legal recognition, it is about Palestine, as the ghost of the Naqba, sitting at the table shaking its hoary locks at the Zionist murderers and their accomplices”.

Maybe other members should resolve to refuse recognition to the Israeli holders of positions that swell Gilad Erdan’s head – like the various vice presidencies and committees or assumed membership of the West European Group that Erdan is so proud of. Time to tweak the desert vulture’s feathers, declared Williams.

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 Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, Jun 21 2024 – “When someone shows you who they are,” Maya Angelou said, “believe them the first time.” That should apply to foreign-policy elites who show you who they are, time after time.

Officials running the Pentagon and State Department have been in overdrive for more than 250 days in support of Israel’s ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Supposedly dedicated to defense and diplomacy, those officials have worked to implement and disguise Washington’s war policies, which have taken more lives than any other government in this century.

Among the weapons of war, cluster munitions are especially horrific. That’s why 67 Democrats and an equal number of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to prevent the U.S. government from continuing to send those weapons to armies overseas.

But more than twice as many House members voted the other way. They defeated a Pentagon funding amendment that would have prohibited the transfer of cluster munitions to other countries. The lawmakers ensured that the U.S. can keep supplying those weapons to the military forces of Ukraine and Israel.

As of now, 124 nations have signed onto a treaty banning cluster munitions, which often wreck the bodies of civilians. The “bomblets” from cluster munitions “are particularly attractive to children because they resemble a bell with a loop of ribbon at the end,” the Just Security organization explains.

But no member of Congress need worry that one of their own children might pick up such a bomblet someday, perhaps mistaking it for a toy, only to be instantly killed or maimed with shrapnel.

The Biden administration correctly responded to indications (later proven accurate) that Russia was using cluster munitions in Ukraine. On Feb. 28, 2022, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told journalists that if the reports of Russian use of those weapons turned out to be true, “it would potentially be a war crime.”

Back then, the front page of the New York Times described “internationally banned cluster munitions” as “a variety of weapons — rockets, bombs, missiles and artillery projectiles — that disperse lethal bomblets in midair over a wide area, hitting military targets and civilians alike.”

Days later, the Times reported that NATO officials “accused Russia of using cluster bombs in its invasion,” and the newspaper added that “anti-personnel cluster bombs . . . kill so indiscriminately they are banned under international law.”

But when the Ukrainian military forces ran low on ammunition last year, the U.S. administration decided to start shipping cluster munitions to them.

“All countries should condemn the use of these weapons under any circumstances,” Human Rights Watch has declared.

BBC correspondent John Simpson summed up a quarter-century ago: “Used against human beings, cluster bombs are some of the most savage weapons of modern warfare.”

As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this spring, cluster munitions “disperse large numbers of submunitions imprecisely over an extended area.” They “frequently fail to detonate and are difficult to detect,” and “can remain explosive hazards for decades.”

The CRS report added: “Civilian casualties are primarily caused by munitions being fired into areas where soldiers and civilians are intermixed, inaccurate cluster munitions landing in populated areas, or civilians traversing areas where cluster munitions have been employed but failed to explode.”

The horrible immediate effects are just the beginning. “It’s been over five decades since the U.S. dropped cluster bombs on Laos, the most bombed country in the world per capita,” Human Rights Watch points out.

“The contamination from cluster munitions remnants and other unexploded ordnance is so vast that fewer than 10 percent of affected areas have been cleared. An estimated 80 million submunitions still pose a danger, especially to curious children.”

The members of Congress who just greenlighted more cluster munitions are dodging grisly realities. The basic approach is to proceed as though such human realities don’t matter if an ally is using those weapons (or if the United States uses them, as happened in Southeast Asia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen).

Overall, with carnage persisting in Gaza, it’s easy enough to say that Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown us who he is. But so has Presidente Biden, and so have the most powerful Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

While the U.S. has been supplying a large majority of the weapons and ammunition imported by Israel, a similar approach from official Washington (with ineffectual grumbling) has enabled Israel to lethally constrict food going into Gaza.

During his State of the Union address in early March, Biden announced plans for the U.S. to build a port on the Gaza coast to bring in food and other vital aid. But his speech didn’t mention the Pentagon’s expectation that such a seaport could take 60 days to become operational.

At the time, a Common Dreams headline summed up the hollowness of the gambit: “Biden Aid Port Plan Rebuked as ‘Pathetic’ PR Effort as Israel Starves Gazans.” Even at full tilt, the envisioned port would not come anywhere near compensating for Israel’s methodical blockage of aid trucks — by far the best way to get food to 2.2 million people facing starvation.

“We are talking about a population that is starving now,” said Ziad Issa, the head of humanitarian policy for ActionAid. “We have already seen children dying of hunger.”

An official at Save the Children offered a reality check: “Children in Gaza cannot wait to eat. They are already dying from malnutrition, and saving their lives is a matter of hours or days — not weeks.”

The Nation described “the tragic absurdity of Biden’s Gaza policies: the U.S. government is making elaborate plans to ameliorate a humanitarian catastrophe that would not exist without its own bombs.”

And this week — more than three months after the ballyhooed drumroll about plans for a port on the Gaza coast — news broke that the whole thing is a colossal failure even on its own terms.

“The $230 million temporary pier that the U.S. military built on short notice to rush humanitarian aid to Gaza has largely failed in its mission, aid organizations say, and will probably end operations weeks earlier than originally expected,” the New York Times reported on June 18. “In the month since it was attached to the shoreline, the pier has been in service only about 10 days. The rest of the time, it was being repaired after rough seas broke it apart, detached to avoid further damage or paused because of security concerns.”

As Israel’s crucial military patron, the U.S. government could insist on an end to the continual massacre of civilians in Gaza and demand a complete halt to interference with aid deliveries. Instead, Israel continues to inflict “unconscionable death and suffering” while mass starvation is closing in.

Maya Angelou’s advice certainly applies. When the president and a big congressional majority show that they are willing accomplices to mass murder, believe them.

It’s fitting that Angelou, a renowned poet and writer, gave her voice to words from Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death one day in 2003 while standing in front of an Israeli army bulldozer as it moved to demolish a Palestinian family’s home in Gaza.

A few years after Corrie died, Angelou recorded a video while reading from an email that the young activist sent: “We are all born and someday we’ll all die. Most likely to some degree alone. What if our aloneness isn’t a tragedy? What if our aloneness is what allows us to speak the truth without being afraid? What if our aloneness is what allows us to adventure — to experience the world as a dynamic presence — as a changeable, interactive thing?”

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including War Made Easy. His latest book, ‘War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine‘, was published in 2023 by The New Press.

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’);  

By Tanka Dhakal
KATHMANDU, Jun 20 2024 – The global public opinion research on climate change reveals that 80 percent, or four out of five, of people globally want their governments to take stronger action to tackle the climate crisis.

According to the Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024 (PCV2024), 86 percent want to see their countries set aside geopolitical differences and work together on climate change.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) collaborated with the University of Oxford in the UK and GeoPoll on the study, which involved asking 15 questions about climate change to more than 75,000 people in 77 countries who spoke 87 different languages. The report released today (Thursday, June 20, 2024) claims to be the biggest ever standalone public opinion survey on climate change and questions were designed to help understand how people are experiencing the impacts of climate change and how they want world leaders to respond. The 77 countries polled represent 87 percent of the global population.

“The People’s Climate Vote is loud and clear. They want their leaders to transcend their differences, to act now and to act boldly to fight the climate crisis,” said UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner. “The survey results—unprecedented in their coverage—reveal a level of consensus that is truly astonishing. We urge leaders and policymakers to take note, especially as countries develop their next round of climate action pledges, or ‘nationally determined contributions’ under the Paris Agreement. This is an issue that almost everyone, everywhere, can agree on.”

Map showing public support for stronger country climate commitments. Source: Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024

Globally, climate change is on people’s mind

Regardless of differences, people across the world reported that climate change was on their minds. According to the report, globally, 56 percent said they were thinking about it regularly (daily or weekly), and some 63 percent of those in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who are on the frontlines of the climate change impact, are waiting for external support to adapt and mitigate.

The report shows worry around climate change is growing; 53 percent, or more than half, of people globally said they were more worried than last year about climate change. Again, worry is higher in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), where 59 percent of people experience climate change-related fear. On average, across the nine Small Island Developing States (SIDS) surveyed, as many as 71 percent said they were more worried than last year about climate change.

Climate change has an impact on people’s major decisions. According to the report, 69 percent of people worldwide said that climate change was having an impact on their major decisions, like where to live or work. The proportion so affected was higher in LDCs at 74 percent but notably lower in Western and Northern Europe at 52 percent and Northern America at 42 percent.

People are in favor of fossil fuel phaseout

The survey results also show overwhelming support for a faster transition away from fossil fuels. For a few years now, whenever leaders meet for climate summits, their major disagreement is the phaseout of fossil fuels, but people are not only calling for bolder climate action; they also want a transition to “green energy.”

The survey shows support by a global majority of 72 percent in favor of a quick transition away from fossil fuels. This is true for countries among the top 10 biggest producers of oil, coal, or gas, including majorities of 89 percent in Nigeria and Türkiye, 80 percent in China, 76 percent in Germany, 75 percent of people in Saudi Arabia, 69 percent in Australia, and 54 percent of people in the United States. Only 7 percent of people globally said their country should not transition at all.

People are in support for stronger climate action in 20 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, with majorities ranging from 66 percent of people in the United States and Russia, to 67 percent in Germany, 73 percent in China, 77 percent in South Africa and India, 85 percent in Brazil, 88 percent in Iran and up to 93 percent in Italy.

Australia, Canada, France, Germany and the United States—in these five big emitters, women were more in favor of strengthening their country’s commitments by 10 to 17 percentage points. This gap was biggest in Germany, where women were 17 percentage points more likely than men to want more climate action (75 percent vs. 58 percent).

Additionally, a majority of people in every country surveyed said rich countries should give more help to poorer countries to address climate change. The poorest countries—those most immediately in need of international support to address climate change—were more likely to be in favor of rich countries giving more help to poorer countries—by upwards of 30 percent—than the world’s wealthiest countries—94 percent in Bhutan and 64 percent in the United States of America. Globally, around eight in ten people said they wanted rich countries to give more support to poorer countries.

Support for climate change education in schools

The survey results showed that people want climate change-related courses in schools; four in five people or 80 percent globally, called for schools in their country to teach more about the topic related to it. The report says education is a critical part of addressing the issue of climate change. In schools, especially, young people need to be taught the impact of our changing climate and given the opportunity to learn how to adapt to it and help identify future solutions.

Large majorities in all countries want schools in their countries to do more to teach people about climate change. Significantly higher proportions of people in LDCs (93 percent) supported more education on climate change compared to 74 percent support in G20 countries.  In Haiti 99 percent people want more education on climate change in schools. But support is low in some countries, with only 29 percent in the USA, 26 percent in Indonesia and 21 percent in Papua New Guinea.

Evidence to develop climate action

This is the first time the public has been asked about climate change in a way that relates to their day-to-day lives, and according to experts, this is important for upcoming discussions.

The first Peoples’ Climate Vote took place in 2021 and surveyed people across 50 countries through advertisements in popular mobile gaming apps.

Prof. Stephen Fisher, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, said, “A survey of this size was a huge scientific endeavor. While maintaining rigorous methodology, special efforts were also made to include people from marginalized groups in the poorest parts of the world. This is some of the very highest quality global data on public opinions on climate change available.”

As world leaders decide on the next round of pledges under the Paris Agreement by 2025, these results seem to have an impact as evidence that people everywhere support bold climate action.

“The Peoples’ Climate Vote has enlisted the voices of people everywhere, including amongst groups traditionally the most difficult to poll. For example, people in nine of the 77 countries surveyed had never before been polled on climate change,” Cassie Flynn, Global Director of Climate Change, UNDP, said.

“The next two years stand as one of the best chances we have as the international community to ensure that warming stays under 1.5°. We stand ready to support policymakers in stepping up their efforts as they develop their climate action plans.”

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 Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jun 20 2024 – The violence that rocked New Caledonia last month has subsided. French President Emmanuel Macron has recently announced the suspension of changes to voting rights in the Pacific island nation, annexed by his country in 1853. His attempt to introduce these changes sparked weeks of violence.

Colonial legacies

Scattered around the world are 13 territories once part of the French Empire that haven’t achieved independence. Their status varies. Some, such as Guadeloupe and Martinique, have the same legal standing as French mainland regions. Others have more autonomy. New Caledonia is in a category of its own: since the 1998 Nouméa Accord, named after New Caledonia’s capital, France agreed to a gradual transfer of power. Currently, France determines New Caledonia’s defence, economic, electoral, foreign and migration policies.

The Accord came in response to a rising independence movement led by Kanak people, the country’s Indigenous inhabitants. Kanaks make up around 40 per cent of the population, with the rest being people of European descent and smaller groups of Asian, Oceanian and mixed heritage. Kanaks experienced severe discrimination under French colonial rule, and for a period were confined to reservations.

An independence movement formed after a fresh wave of Europeans arrived in the 1970s to work in the nickel-mining industry. New Caledonia is the world’s fourth-largest producer of nickel, a key ingredient in stainless steel and, increasingly, electric vehicle batteries. The nickel boom highlighted the divide in economic opportunities. Unrest lead to worsening violence and, eventually, the Nouméa Accord.

A downturn in the industry has deepened economic strife, exacerbating the poverty, inequality and unemployment many Kanaks experience. Today, around a third of Kanaks live in poverty compared to nine per cent of non-Kanaks.

Multiple referendums

The Accord created different electoral rolls for voting in mainland France and in New Caledonian elections and referendums, where the roll is frozen and only people who lived in the country in 1998 and their children can vote. These limitations were intended to give Kanak people a greater say in three independence referendums provided for in the Accord.

Referendums took place in 2018, 2020 and 2021, and the pro-independence camp lost every time. The 2020 vote was close, with around 47 per cent in favour of independence. But the December 2021 referendum was held amid a boycott by pro-independence parties, which called for a postponement due to the COVID-19 pandemic: an outbreak that began in September 2021 left 280 people dead, most of them Kanak. Independence campaigners complained the vote impinged on traditional Kanak mourning rituals, making it impossible to campaign.

Almost 97 per cent of those who voted rejected independence, but the boycott meant only around 44 per cent of eligible people voted, compared to past turnouts of over 80 per cent.

France viewed this referendum as marking the completion of the Nouméa Accord. Macron made clear he considered the issue settled and appointed anti-independence people to key positions. The independence movement insisted that the vote, imposed by France against its wishes, wasn’t valid and another should be held.

Since the Accord was agreed, the far right has risen to prominence in France, as seen in the recent European Parliament elections. French politics and its politicians have become more racist, with mainstream parties, including Macron’s, tacking rightwards in response to the growing popularity of the far-right National Rally party. The ripple effect in New Caledonia is growing polarisation. As French politicians have promoted a narrow understanding of national identity, New Caledonia’s anti-independence movement has become more emboldened.

China’s push for closer ties with Pacific countries has also raised Oceania’s strategic importance. The US government and its allies, including France, have responded by paying renewed attention to a long-neglected region. France may be less willing to tolerate independence than before, particularly given the growing demand for electric vehicles.

State of emergency

The immediate cause of the protests was the French government’s plan to extend the franchise to anyone who has lived in New Caledonia for more than 10 years. For the independence movement, this was a unilateral departure from the Nouméa Accord’s principles and a setback for prospects for decolonisation and self-determination. Tens of thousands took part in protests against the change, approved by the French National Assembly but pending final confirmation.

On 13 May, clashes between pro-independence protesters and security forces led to riots. Rioters burned down hundreds of buildings in Nouméa. Communities set up barricades and people formed defence groups. Eight people are reported to have died.

France declared a state of emergency and brought in around 3,000 troops to suppress the violence, a move many in civil society criticised as heavy-handed. French authorities also banned TikTok. It was the first time a European Union country has made such a move, potentially setting a dangerous precedent.

Blocking social media platforms will never be the answer!

For two weeks, French authorities blocked TikTok in New Caledonia in an attempt to quell protests. Learn why this action was unacceptable and will always be in violation of human rights:https://t.co/NFaTHvidXI

— Access Now (@accessnow) June 5, 2024

Dialogue needed

Macron, who paid a brief visit once violence had subsided, has said the electoral changes will be suspended to allow for dialogue. His decision to gamble on early elections in France in the wake of his European election defeat has bought him some time.

This time should be used to build bridges and address the evident fact that many Kanak people don’t feel listened to. This goes beyond the question of the franchise. There are deep and unaddressed problems of economic and social exclusion. Many of those involved in violence were young, unemployed Kanaks who feel life has little to offer.

As a consequence of recent developments, New Caledonia is now more divided than it’s been in decades. The question of independence hasn’t been settled. Many Kanak people feel betrayed. For them, before there can be any extension of the franchise, France must agree to complete the unfinished process of decolonisation.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society 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 Sefa Ikpa
LAGOS, Nigeria, Jun 20 2024 – Authoritarian overreach is re-defining itself across West Africa, fuelled by armed conflicts, military coups, and electoral manipulation and violence, as the region experiences a decline in democracy.

Notably, repressive governments are increasingly turning to content moderation laws as the newest tools for gagging the press and stifling free speech on the internet. The internet means many different things to many people. For some, it means a free space to express themselves and ventilate their thoughts without fear of retribution, silencing or coercion.

For politicians, it is a powerful tool to recruit supporters and disseminate campaign messages. For activists, it is a platform to build solidarity, draw attention to social causes, and foster accountability for governments and corporations.

For the media, the internet has revolutionised operations by providing innovative and creative ways for news production, audience engagement, information gathering and dissemination.

For smaller media houses, which otherwise would have struggled with visibility and the costs associated with physical newsroom operations and news production, the internet has offered smarter and cheaper ways to amplify their work.

But the internet’s many successes in facilitating access to critical information and spaces for raising citizens’ concerns have not come without its downsides. The digital revolution has, unfortunately, also provided a platform for widespread misinformation and disinformation, posing a real threat to national security, public order and democratic governance — a paradigm that is particularly troubling for developing democracies like those in West Africa.

Although the challenge of misinformation is not new, the wide scope of manipulation and the multiplicity of techniques and platforms to disseminate information, enabled by evolving technology, have placed the issue in a very unique and unprecedented context.

Ample room for misuse and misinterpretation

In response, state authorities have implemented several technological measures to counter this threat, including the introduction of content moderation laws. These laws, presented as genuine efforts to combat the spread of false information and maintain social order, often end up clashing with already existing laws that guarantee freedom of expression.

In particular, the vague and broad wording of these laws leaves room for misapplication and executive overreach, providing state actors with the impetus to regulate the press or severely punish journalists they consider ‘stubborn’.

Adeboye Adegoke, a digital rights expert and senior manager at Paradigm Initiative, says that ‘content moderation through executive fiat is very common, in which case the governments can take down “offending” content as they choose.

That is the major problem when content moderation laws are not made in consideration of existing laws.’ This issue is exemplified in Mali, where stakeholders denounced the new Suppression of Cybercrime Law, stating that its provisions affecting online press freedom were inconsistent with constitutional laws protecting the press.

While physical harm and overt legal actions are already problematic, the widespread press suppression through legal actions has led to a climate of fear among journalists.

The implementation of these content moderation laws has had a deleterious effect on press freedom across the region. Under the provisions of these laws, journalists have been subjected to harassment, intimidation and legal action.

Nigeria, for example, has passed and implemented a Cybercrimes Act, originally developed as a tool to curb internet-related offenses. Section 24 of the Act, which criminalises the dissemination of offensive, false or menacing messages, has been particularly contentious.

The case of Agba Jalingo, a journalist accused of treasonable felony, terrorism and an attempt to topple the Cross River State Government, has become emblematic of the government’s relentless pursuit of dissident journalists.

Similarly, since taking over power in 2022, Burkina Faso’s junta-led government has overseen the suspension of various media outlets in the country. The country has amended its penal code to criminalise the reporting of terrorist attacks or security issues that could ‘undermine public order’ or ‘demoralise security and defence forces’.

Such offenses can lead to imprisonment for up to 10 years as well as hefty fines. Similar legislation has been enacted in other West African countries like Ghana, Senegal, Togo, Sierra Leone and others.

Self-censorship

While physical harm and overt legal actions are already problematic, the widespread press suppression through legal actions, also known as Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits, has also led to a climate of fear among journalists, who now resort to self-censorship to avoid punitive measures. In turn, journalists are increasingly afraid to report on sensitive issues.

Blessing Oladunjoye, a Nigerian journalist and publisher of BONews Service, is currently being prosecuted under the Cybercrimes Act for an undercover investigation on fertility clinics and surrogacy in Nigeria.

She expressed the effect of this legal action on her work as follows: ‘After I was served those papers, I started asking myself, what kind of stories am I supposed to do now that I am sure will not provoke anybody? It was terrifying. It has affected the kind of stories I want to pursue.’

In environments where content moderation laws are harshly enforced, journalists may choose to avoid reporting on government corruption, human rights abuses or social unrest. An anonymous Nigerian journalist from a government-owned media house explained that they often had to gauge the government’s stance before publishing stories:

‘Sometimes, you need to feel the pulse of the government. It determines what you write. For instance, with any content that goes against the interest of my principal, you have to think about it beforehand. Personally, I had to be transferred to another state as a result of a story that I wrote that was not in the interest of the government.’

In a true democracy, the press does not live in fear.

But the campaign of calumny against journalists is not only championed by governments; Non-state actors have also taken a page from the authoritarian playbook now, as seen in the case of Oladunjoye. ‘Non-state actors are emboldened to commit attacks against journalists because state actors do it with impunity and, of course, no one holds them accountable for it’, she laments.

Democratic governance in West Africa has been extremely challenging, especially in the last decade, and the suppression of press freedom through content moderation laws poses a significant threat to democratic stability in the region. A free and empowered press – free from any form of control and censorship – is essential for any functional democracy.

The press acts as a check on governments and powerful entities, uncovering corruption, human rights violations, abuse of power and other breaches of social contracts. When journalists are silenced, either through direct legal action or self-censorship, these critical functions are compromised.

As West Africa continues to grapple with these challenges, the path forward requires a nuanced approach that respects the freedoms of the press while addressing the real dangers posed by digital misinformation.

While misinformation and disinformation may have become more prevalent with the rise of digital technologies, content moderation laws must be narrowly tailored to target genuine threats to public order and national security without being used as tools of repression.

The implications of content moderation on journalists can only be mitigated if content moderation laws are developed in the context of existing constitutional laws and with strict legal guidelines applied to protect journalists and ensure that their rights to free expression and access to information are upheld. In a true democracy, the press does not live in fear.

Sefa Ikpa is a social justice advocate and a development communications expert. She works for the inclusion of marginalised groups and voices in governance processes in Nigeria and the protection of civil liberties. She is an electrical and electronics engineer with a passion to enhance digital access and close the gender gap in STEM education, safeguard the civic space in West Africa and promote women’s involvement in governance processes.

Source: International Politics and Society, published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

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’);  

By Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, Jun 20 2024 (IPS-Partners)

On World Refugee Day, we must stand in solidarity with the 120 million forcibly displaced people – including 43 million refugees worldwide – who have lost their homes and their human rights as the result of persecution and conflict.

As we unite with partners across the UN system, donors, the private sector and member states, we cannot forget the power of education to protect and safeguard the futures of the world’s most vulnerable children. These are children uprooted from their homes, their schools and their country, often ending up outside the public school system.

Our world is bleeding from inhumane and brutal armed conflicts. The most recent statistics from our partner UNHCR indicate the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide increased by 8% between 2022 and 2023, continuing a series of year-on-year increases over the last 12 years. In the State of Palestine alone, 6 million refugees are under UNRWA’s mandate. The world at large is facing the largest number of refugees since World War II.

Low- and middle-income countries are affected the most, with 75% of the world’s refugees and other people in need of international protection.

The dispossession, the uprooting, the suffering stemming from human rights abuses has become the new ‘normal’ for these forcibly displaced populations. Their lives and development demand a turn-around from the abnormal to real normalcy. Living at home and attending a public school is every child’s right and necessity.

On my recent visit to Chad, I saw firsthand the hollow eyes and fears in the eyes of young children fleeing from Darfur in Sudan to Chad. I saw firsthand how UNHCR and other aid organizations stayed with them day-and-night to provide a sense of safety and basic necessities. I saw how the power of education to insulate children from the horrors of conflict and forced displacement indeed is possible.

ECW has provided US$10 million to date in response to the Sudan regional refugee crisis, with First Emergency Response grants in the Central Africa Republic, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, and South Sudan. In Sudan itself, 18 million children are out of school, and we must urgently ramp up global funding to address what is fast becoming the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has become one of the largest international displacement crises in the world with 8 million Venezuelans displaced globally, according to UNHCR. In neighboring countries including Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, ECW has provided catalytic funding for Multi-Year Resilience Programmes that are having a tangible impact on the lives of millions.

There is a human face to these stories of transformation. For forcibly displaced children like Shaimaa in Sudan, Darya in Moldova, Josveglys in Colombia and Jannat in Bangladesh, our investment in education is our investment in human life, in human rights, peace and security.

The best step we can take is not to simply race from one emergency to another. We must build the systems, policies and infrastructure needed to ensure development depth and sustainability. By translating our response through humanitarian-development joint programming, we can respond with both speed and depth. This requires financing.

On World Refugee Day, step up to #ShareTheirVoices as we stand in solidarity #WithRefugees everywhere. More so, let’s step up to end all the conflicts that force them to flee. Let’s step up and finance their right to an inclusive and continued quality education. Let’s empower them to use their resilience and, one day, lead.

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’);  

Excerpt:

World Refugee Day Statement by Education Cannot Wait Executive Director Yasmine Sherif