By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Sep 2 2024 – A New Zealand bill that would roll back Indigenous rights is unlikely to pass – but it’s emblematic of a growing climate of hostility from governing politicians. A recent survey shows that almost half of New Zealanders believe racial tensions have worsened under the right-wing government in power since December 2023.

The Treaty Principles Bill reinterprets the principles of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. New Zealand’s founding text, this agreement between the British government and Indigenous Māori chiefs established British governorship over the islands in return for recognition of Māori ownership of land and other property.

The treaty was controversial from the start: its English and Māori versions differ in crucial clauses on sovereignty. Māori people lost much of their land, suffering the same marginalisation as Indigenous people in other places settled by Europeans. As a result, Māori people live with higher levels of poverty, unemployment and crime, and lower education and health standards, than the rest of the population.

From the 1950s, Māori people began to organise and demand their treaty rights. This led to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which defined a set of principles derived from the treaty and established the Waitangi Tribunal to determine breaches of the principles and recommend remedies.

In recent years, right-wing politicians have criticised the tribunal, claiming it’s overstepping its mandate – most recently because it held a hearing that concluded the bill breaches treaty principles.

Change in direction

The bill resulted from a coalition agreement forged after the 2023 election. The centre-right National party came first and went into government with two parties to its right: the free-market and libertarian Act party and the nationalist and populist NZ First party. Act demanded the bill as a condition of joining the coalition.

The election was unusually toxic by New Zealand standards. Candidates were subjected to racial abuse and physical violence. A group of Māori leaders complained about unusually high levels of racism. Both Act and NZ First targeted Māori rights, promising to reverse Labour’s progressive policies, including experiments in ‘co-governance’: collaborative decision-making between government and Māori representatives. Act and NZ First characterised such arrangements as conferring racial privilege on Māori people, at odds with universal human rights.

NZ First leader Winston Peters – who’s long opposed what he characterises as special treatment for Māori people despite being Māori himself – pledged to remove Māori-language names from government buildings and withdraw New Zealand’s support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He’s compared co-governance to apartheid and Nazi racial theory. He’s now New Zealand’s deputy prime minister.

New Zealand, though far from Europe and North America, has shown it isn’t immune from the same right-wing populist politics that seek to blame a visible minority for all a country’s problems. In the northern hemisphere the main targets are migrants and religious minorities; in New Zealand, it’s Indigenous people.

Bonfire of policies

If the bill did succeed, it would preclude any interpretation of the treaty as a partnership between the state and Māori people. It would impose a rigid understanding that all New Zealanders have the same rights and responsibilities, inhibiting measures to expand Māori rights. And without special attention, the economic, social and political exclusion of Māori people will only worsen.

The problems go beyond the bill. In February, the government abolished the Māori Health Authority, established in 2022 to tackle health inequalities. In July, a government directive ordered Pharmac, the agency that funds medicines, to stop taking treaty principles into account when making funding decisions. This is part of a broader attack on treaty principles, which the government has pledged to remove from most legislation.

Government departments have been ordered to prioritise their English-language names and communicate primarily in English, unless they’re specifically focused on Māori people. The government has pledged to review the school curriculum – revised last year to place more emphasis on Māori people – and university affirmative action programmes. It’s ceased work on He Puapua, its strategy to implement the UN Declaration.

The government has cut funding for most of its initiatives for Māori people. In all, over a dozen changes are planned, including in environmental management, health and housing.

What’s bad for Māori people is also bad for the climate. The intimate role the environment plays in Māori culture often puts them on the frontline of combating climate change. This year a Māori activist won a ruling allowing him to take seven companies to court over their greenhouse gas emissions, based in part on their impact on places of customary, cultural and spiritual significance to Māori people..

But the new government has cut funding for many projects aimed at meeting New Zealand’s Paris Agreement commitments. It plans to double mineral exports and introduce a law to fast-track large development projects, without having to navigate environmental safeguards. The draft law contains no provisions about treaty principles. Māori people will be disproportionately affected by any weakening of environmental standards.

Out in numbers

This is all shaping up to be a huge setback for Māori rights that can only fuel and normalise racism – but campaigners aren’t taking it quietly. The threat to rights has galvanised and united Māori campaigners.

Civil society groups are taking to the courts to try to halt the changes. And people are protesting in numbers. In December, when parliament met for the first time since the election, thousands gathered outside to condemn anti-Māori policies. At the swearing-in ceremony, Te Pāti Māori politicians broke with convention by dedicating their oaths to the Treaty of Waitangi and future generations.

That same month, 12 people were arrested following a protest in which they defaced an exhibition on the treaty at the national museum. Protesters accused the exhibition of lying about the treaty’s English version.

On 6 February, Waitangi Day, over a thousand people marched to the site where the treaty was agreed, calling for the bill to be rejected. At the official ceremony, people heckled Peters and Act leader Peter Seymour when they spoke.

Most recently, Māori people had a chance to show their discontent at a ceremony held in August to commemorate the coronation of the Māori King. Although normally all major party leaders attend, Seymour wasn’t invited, and a Māori leader told Prime Minister Christopher Luxon that the government had ‘turned its back on Māori’. The Māori King also called a rare national meeting in January, and the turnout – 10,000 people – further showed the extent of concern.

Wasted potential

At the same time, the Māori population is growing quickly – it recently passed the million mark – and is youthful. Compared to previous generations, people are more likely to embrace their Māori identity, culture and language. Māori people are showing their resilience, and activism has never been stronger. But this growing momentum has hit a political roadblock that threatens to throttle its potential – all for the sake of short-term political gain.

New Zealand’s positive international reputation is on the line – but it doesn’t have to be this way. The government should start acting like a responsible partner under the Treaty of Waitangi. It must abide by the treaty principles, as developed and elaborated over time, and stop scapegoating Māori people.

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 Robert Kibet
NAIROBI, Sep 2 2024 – As the world marked International Day of the Disappeared, Kenya grapples with a shadowy and persistent crisis—enforced disappearances. This harrowing violation of human rights has left countless families in anguish, searching for their loved ones while battling a wall of government denial and indifference.

Enforced disappearance is addressed in international law, specifically the UN’s International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. However, Kenya has yet to ratify this crucial convention, leaving a legal void that exacerbates the problem.

According to Kevin Mwangi, a program officer with the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU), the Kenyan government lacks a definition within national legislation, meaning Kenyans and civil society rely on UN international guidelines to hold authorities accountable.

One haunting instance occurred in 2021 when Kenya’s Yala River, once a peaceful and secluded area, became a site of horror. Over a few weeks, 26 bodies were discovered within a 50-meter stretch. The bodies, many male, were found far from where they had originally gone missing, most of whom were facing criminal charges.

Human rights activists were initially involved in the investigations, but they were soon pushed out by the police. Boniface Ogutu, one of the activists working on the case, told the press, “We found bodies with their hands tied with ropes. Some were wrapped in polythene bags. Many of the bodies showed signs of severe trauma, including scars similar to acid burns, and most appeared to have been tortured before being dumped into the water.”

Ogutu further reported that villagers had observed a black Subaru, often associated with security forces, speeding to the riverbank with four occupants who would hurriedly dispose of the bodies before driving away.

In the early 2010s, the Kenyan government granted sweeping powers to security agencies to combat terrorism, leading to a surge in kidnappings, torture, and extrajudicial killings, even for petty crimes.

Hit squads began targeting suspects, and during election seasons, when rallies and protests were frequent, reports of disappearances and killings skyrocketed. In 2021 alone, rights groups documented at least 170 extrajudicial killings and numerous disappearances attributed to the police.

One of the victims found in the Yala River was Philemon Chepkwony, a resident of Kipkelion in Kenya’s Rift Valley. He had been charged with car theft and was out on bail awaiting trial when he disappeared in December 2021.

“We are witnessing a disturbing trend of young people like Philemon disappearing without a trace, only to be found dead in rivers,” lamented Hillary Kosgey, the legislator for Kipkelion West, at Chepkwony’s burial. “No one has the right to take away these lives. If they are jailed, they can reform.”

In Kenya’s coastal counties like Mombasa, where much of the country’s Muslim population resides, young men have been recruited by terrorist groups, prompting the police to carry out frequent raids and profiling of these communities.

The recent discovery of mutilated bodies wrapped in polythene bags at an open quarry in Mukuru Kwa Njenga, one of Kenya’s slum residences, sparked public anger amid weeks of anti-government protests over a since-scrapped finance bill.

After assuming power, President William Ruto repeatedly stated in public rallies, there would be no cases of enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killings.

Mwangi outlines the chilling components of enforced disappearance: “It begins with the deprivation of the right to liberty, often without the victim’s consent or knowledge. This act is carried out by government officials, who then conceal or deny any knowledge of the person’s whereabouts.”

“Enforced disappearance is not a transient issue; it can span years, even decades. It is a permanent state of limbo for the victims and their families until the person is found,” Mwangi adds, stressing the long-lasting impact of such crimes.

The 2023 Missing Voices report indicated a slight reduction in extrajudicial killings between 2022 and 2023, from 130 to 118, and a decrease in enforced disappearances from 22 to 10.

“Men continue to be the primary victims, accounting for 94% of extrajudicial killings, with a notable concentration among men aged 19-35,” the report states.

In Africa, enforced disappearances, particularly in politically volatile regions, often occur within the context of state repression. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a stark example, where a massacre led to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights holding the government accountable for acts of enforced disappearance.

“For enforced disappearance to occur, government officials must be involved, and the state must have full knowledge of the whereabouts of the missing individuals,” Mwangi clarifies.

In Kenya, the situation is dire. Mwangi recalls a case handled by IMLU where two individuals, after being released from court, were allegedly abducted by security officials. “To this day, the government denies knowing their whereabouts,” he laments, highlighting the pervasive culture of impunity.

The infamous River Yala incident serves as a grim reminder of the scale of the problem. Mwangi points to the systemic failure of the judiciary, where a revolving door of bail releases perpetuates the cycle of crime and violence.

“There is a growing narrative that the courts are not doing their work, leading police to take matters into their own hands,” he notes.

Despite the gravity of the situation, Kenya lacks specific legislation on enforced disappearance. The country has not ratified the international convention, leaving victims and their families without a clear path to justice.

“One life is one too many,” Mwangi says, referencing the 32 cases documented by the Missing Voices coalition. “We are currently developing guidelines to ensure that each African country has a policy on enforced disappearance. The numbers may be higher than reported, but only a few cases come to light.”

After Kenya’s 2007-2008 general elections, there were significant human rights violations, leading to the formation of the Ransley Taskforce to address police reforms. The task force made strong recommendations, including the need to separate these entities, as at the time, the police were the perpetrators, prosecutors, and investigators. This flawed system prevented justice from being realized and emphasized the need for mechanisms to ensure justice and accountability.

In 2017, Kenya enacted the Coroner Service Act, which provided a framework for forensic documentation at crime scenes. However, implementation has been problematic. For instance, in a 2018 case in Eldoret, a police officer handled a murder weapon with bare hands, compromising the evidence.

Currently, forensic evidence collection in Kenya is substandard, failing to meet the requirements necessary to hold up in court. Although the Coroner Law was assented to by the President in 2017, it has not been operationalized, largely due to a lack of political will.

“Kenya has a history of passing laws that are then shelved. When questioned, the government claims that the delay is due to funding issues, stating that funds need to be allocated to create the Coroner’s office,” Mwangi says.

Moreover, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) lacks its forensic lab and must rely on the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), which is part of the security forces. There is a pressing need for an independent forensic lab under IPOA to carry out forensic audits.

Despite these challenges, IPOA has succeeded in securing eight convictions in extrajudicial cases over the past 11 years. This entity was established to ensure accountability in such cases.

Roselyn Odede, chairperson of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, reported in 2023 that the commission received reports of 22 extrajudicial killings and nine cases of enforced disappearance between January 2022 and June 2023.

Peninah Koome, chairperson of Kenyan Champions for Justice, a community-based organization, recounted her harrowing experience. Her husband was arrested, brutally beaten by the officer in charge at Ruaraka police station, and later died at Kenyatta National Hospital.

“I had no money to pay for lawyers, but IPOA and International Justice Mission (IJM) stepped in. However, as a witness to my husband’s case, I became a target. They came after me the day after I testified. IPOA and IJM had to provide protection. After three years, we finally got justice.”

Houghton Irungu, the Executive Director at Amnesty International Kenya, expressed concern about the return of the same oppressive culture despite the Kenya Kwanza administration’s promise under Ruto to end enforced disappearances.

“They disbanded the Special Service Unit (SSU), revamped the National Police Service, changed the Director of Criminal Investigations, and restructured the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU). We hoped this would lead to respect for the rule of law, but the old habits seem to be resurfacing,” said Irungu.

Irungu emphasizes the importance of timely identification of missing persons and the need for human rights organizations and witness protection agencies to act quickly to protect witnesses and their families.

“As a country, we still haven’t ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. It’s been five years since Parliament passed the Coroner Service Act, yet we still lack independent coroner forensic capacity to prosecute these cases. We don’t even have a national database on missing persons,” laments Irungu.

As the international community commemorates the victims of enforced disappearances, the call for justice in Kenya grows louder. The government’s failure to address this issue not only violates human rights but also erodes public trust in state institutions. For the families of the missing, the search for truth and accountability.

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 Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana and Zhaslan Madiyev
BANGKOK, Thailand, Sep 2 2024 – The development paradigm has shifted to ‘digital by default’ as a norm, reshaping societies and economies. As a hub for digitally driven innovations, Asia and the Pacific is well positioned to leverage the transformative potential of digital technologies to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

Emerging technologies are enabling smarter climate action, building more disaster-resilient cities and optimizing urban development. Artificial intelligence is helping improve the accuracy of early warning systems for disasters by providing the right information that reaches all the right people at the right time.

Digital finance is more inclusive – expanding access especially for marginalized groups – while digital government platforms likewise enable public services to reach all citizens more effectively and efficiently.

The Asia-Pacific Digital Transformation Report 2024, which will be launched this week, demonstrates how digital innovations have enabled more sophisticated climate mitigation and adaptation measures across infrastructure, governance, mobility, industry and trade, disaster risk reduction, and agricultural and biodiversity ecosystems.

Drawing from International Energy Agency data, the deployment of digital technologies and big data could save $80 billion per year or around 5 per cent of total world annual power generation costs, while digitalization can help the integration of renewables by enabling smart grids to better match energy demand.

However, the opportunities presented by digital innovations for sustainable development also face challenges and looming threats. The Asia-Pacific region is confronted with several barriers to the broad-scale adoption of digital solutions.

While 96 per cent of the population in Asia and the Pacific live in areas covered by mobile broadband networks, it is estimated that only one-third productively uses internet services and up to 40 per cent lacks basic digital skills.

Moreover, while four out of five people in urban areas use the Internet, in rural regions, this figure is only 52 per cent. Such gaps in meaningful access are due to digital divides that broadly follow age, income, education and geographic fault lines, with the gender divide underlying all these aspects.

With the use of artificial intelligence rapidly rising, the need and urgency to bridge the digital divides between and within countries remain critical to ensure the full enjoyment of the benefits of digital technologies for all, while minimizing their risks.

Deploying innovative breakthrough solutions in bridging the digital divide and leveraging digital transformation for sustainable development will require mobilizing investments at scale in new infrastructure and connectivity.

To this end, expanding affordable high-speed Internet coverage particularly among marginalized and underserved communities in rural areas, as well as offering digital skills training and lifelong learning, are critical for reducing digital disparities and connecting the unconnected.

By sharing knowledge, experiences and practices among countries, regional cooperation can create a conducive environment for innovation to flourish and steer us towards an inclusive digital future.

These holistic approaches require a high level of policy ambition. At the Asia-Pacific Ministerial Conference on Digital Inclusion and Transformation, which ESCAP is organizing in partnership with the Government of Kazakhstan in Astana this week, Ministers are expected to commit to a common vision, centred on innovative, collaborative digital solutions grounded in regional cooperation.

In this regard, the conference will consider the possibility of establishing a Digital Solutions Centre for Sustainable Development in Kazakhstan that aims to share practical digital solutions to advance the sustainable development agenda in the region.

Relatedly, the ESCAP Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway Initiative and its Action Plan 2022-2026 contributes to the collective push to extend meaningful connectivity to all, scale up digital technology applications and strengthen digital data, which form the foundations for an inclusive, sustainable digital future.

With Asia and the Pacific at the forefront of a global digital transformation, a sustainable future is within reach. Let us seize on the digital promise to accelerate sustainable development in our region.

https://www.youtube.com/unescap

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of ESCAP.

Zhaslan Madiyev is Minister of Digital Development, Innovations and Aerospace Industry of Kazakhstan.

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 Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Sep 2 2024 – During Donald Trump’s presidency, the United States withdrew from several international organizations. These include the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Trump’s actions were partly motivated by a broader strategy, presumably prioritizing “America First” policies. Trump often cited perceived prejudices or inefficiencies within these organizations.

If Trump were to be reelected, he should be persuaded not to take similar actions as that would diminish rather than serve America’s leadership role and its influence on these organizations and prevent it from leading by example and walking the high moral ground.

Although Trump, if reelected, will more than likely withdraw from many of these organizations, when and how he will act would depend on several factors.

Strategic Interests

Trump’s foreign policy has often been transactional. He was guided by what he thought best served America’s interests. If staying in these organizations is inconsistent with his perceived strategic interests, however misguided that might be, he will undoubtedly consider withdrawing again from these and other UN organizations.

Political Climate

The domestic and international political climate could influence his decisions. For example, if Trump enjoyed solid domestic support for disengaging from international organizations or if geopolitical tensions required a reevaluation of alliances, he might pursue similar actions.

Policy Continuity

Trump’s previous withdrawals were propelled by his critiques of many of these organizations, such as suspected mismanagement, prejudice against specific states, or inadequacies in dealing with global issues. Similar actions could be expected if his views on these “concerns” remain unchanged.

That said, given what Trump has been saying and advocating as he campaigns for reelection, he remains committed to his misguided notion of “America First” when, in fact, America’s best interest is served by staying in rather than withdrawing from these international organizations.

Nevertheless, should he still take similar action, it could create significant financial gaps at these organizations, given the US’s role as the largest contributor to the UN.

In 2022, the US contributed over $18 billion, accounting for about one-third of the UN’s overall funding. This substantial financial support is crucial for various UN operations, including peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and health initiatives.

In the event of a US withdrawal, the UN should be prepared to take several measures to mitigate the adverse impact on these organizations.

Bolstering Alliances

The UN Secretary-General should seek to build stronger coalitions with other countries to step up to fill the financial void and assist in mitigating the impact of a US withdrawal, including nurturing relationships with emerging economies and regional powers. These powers include:

• China: As the second-largest contributor to the UN, China has already increased its financial commitments in recent years. In 2022, China contributed approximately 16 percent of the UN peacekeeping budget and 15 percent to the UN’s regular budget, making it a significant player.

• Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom: These countries are among the top contributors to the UN budget, with Japan contributing about 8 percent, Germany contributing around 6 percent, and the United Kingdom contributing around 4 percent. While these nations might struggle to fill the gap left by the US entirely, they could increase their contributions to mitigate the adverse impact.

• The EU: Given its commitment to multilateralism and global cooperation, the EU could collectively increase its contributions to the UN, which would offer the block an opportunity to assert its leadership on the world stage.

• Emerging Powers like India and Brazil, which are growing economically, might also be encouraged to increase their contributions. This could allow these nations to gain more influence in international affairs.

While these countries and groups might increase their contributions, it is important to note that the financial gap left by the US would be challenging to fill completely. The UN will have to prioritize its programs and seek efficiencies to cope with reduced funding. Additionally, the loss of US support could lead to strategic shifts within the UN, affecting its operations and influence.

Broadening of Funding Resources

Organizations such as UNRWA should diversify their funding sources to reduce their dependence on any single country, especially the US, which is the largest contributor. This could involve increasing contributions from other member UN states, private donors, and charitable organizations specifically concerned about the plight of the Palestinians.

Such countries may include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and other oil-rich Arab states.

Involving US policymakers

The UN should engage privately with many US policymakers to address its concerns and demonstrate the benefits of membership in these organizations, which could avert future withdrawals by the new Trump administration. This could entail stressing the importance and the strategic advantages of multilateral collaboration in addressing international challenges.

Reform Initiatives

Addressing criticisms that led to previous withdrawals, such as perceived biases or inefficiencies, could help prevent future disengagements. Moreover, transparent reforms and accountability measures might reassure skeptical member states of the organizations’ importance and effectiveness.

US financial support of many UN organizations must remain unabated. Those who can exert any influence on Trump should point out to him, should he be reelected, how critical US support is for the functioning of these organizations, as well as for the US’s self-interest, which is consistent with Trump’s notion of “America First.”

Given, however, what we know about Trump, the likelihood is that he will not change his ways and may well pursue the same shortsighted policies.

Thus, by preparing and adopting the above strategic measures, the UN and its agencies will be in a much stronger position to survive potential shifts in the US treatment of these organizations and its foreign policy in general under Trump and proceed with their important missions efficiently.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

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’);