By Randa El Ozeir
TORONTO / BEIRUT , Dec 17 2024 – Sixty-four days of unrelenting war machine by Israel against Lebanon put my entire beliefs and ethos to a painful test: my sincerity in promoting social justice, human rights, integrity, patriotism, spirituality and, philosophically speaking, universal human values of love, peace and non-violence.

Undergoing collective injustice, large-scale explosions targeting electronic portable devices, sophisticated weaponry attacks that disregard your homeland sovereignty and war crimes gives you the right to be angry. Intentional and malicious infringement entitles you to fight and militantly defend yourself and your country. Wouldn’t you have the right to avenge based on “eye-for-an-eye” response?

The answer is never straightforward, single dimensional or conclusive. A risk of cognitive dissonance is inevitable. An inner turmoil might emerge. How can we justify ourselves as anti-war and pro-peace while rooting for the “victory” of our assaulted homeland?

Killing in the battlefield is expected and commonly accepted. Since the dawn of human history, soldiers and fighters have been carrying out their duties towards their countries/nations when involved in power struggle, turf war, and land protection against invasion and amputation.

But murdering unarmed civilians and children is never justified under any given pretext, especially after humanity declared leaving back dark ages and medieval barbaric practices.

A Broken Moral Compass

Our today’s world is facing an ethical impasse that threatens our very unity and human cooperation. An entity like The United Nations is facing difficult existential questions. A universal broken moral compass brought a deep feeling of dislodged certainties, disappointment and helplessness.

In the midst of the war on Lebanon – some might argue it was simply an extension of the then ongoing armed conflict between Hezbollah and Israel that erupted on 8 October 2023 – I faced though emotions while trying to balance personal, ideals and peaceful views of the world and a dormant Lebanese identity overshadowed by a Canadian identity that carries its own problem whenever indigenous voices come out to remind us of colonial legacy.

Creation of Israel, as a colonial state, is a fresh memory due to continual war crimes against indigenous people, Palestinians in this case. What still unfolds in Gaza is no exception in practice, although it is exceeding by far anything the modern world has seen after World War II (WWII).

“The Israeli occupation is a moral crime, one that has been all but covered by the West”, writes the American author, journalist and activist, Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his recent book “The Message”.

Complexities of extreme alliances, divisions and political allegiance shifts across the Middle East throughout its long history are undeniable, and the region earned a reputation of uncertainty, volatility and animosity.

Our homeland lays on the intersection of being the absolute, tangible reality of our existence’s centre and symbolizing the aspiration and the transcendent ideation of belonging.

Hollow Words Facing Mass Destruction

During the last blood-shed and destructive offensive of Israel against Lebanon, patriotism took hold of my daily life. I adopted a tunnel vision, focused solely on that nightmarish crisis.

An incessant wave of agonising waiting and deep sadness engulfed my reality to the point of living an almost out-of-body experience. Words became hollow, fell short of describing the heart’s turmoil with the mass destruction and conceited attitude of the assaulting country.

Every waking hour was dedicated to following the news, hysterically checking on my family there, as assumingly was the Lebanese Diaspora’s state.

Patriotism could feel magnified when we are abroad. As much as I longed to be fully included in the situation, I was not there to live the real fear of the direct physical danger, the Israeli’s digital rights violations and the misleading and inadequate warnings for civilians.

Lebanese people know inside-out what war means. We recognize its ugly face. We lived through many episodes, dating back to 1860. We witnessed colonial, civil, proxy and resistance wars.

Resistance in Lebanon opposing Zionism and West imperialism has been deeply ingrained in the country’s core story with different names and players depending on the political and military circumstances. Hezbollah appeared as a resistance and military movement during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 that killed 14,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, stayed the course throughout the 18-year Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon that sustained significant human wounds – including the Qana Massacre in April 1996-, liberated the occupied land in 2000 and emerged triumphant from 2006 Israeli war.

Retracing the ascent of Hezbollah, its affiliation with Iran, the dominant role it has been playing on the Lebanese political stage and its regional size is beyond my scope of expertise. Fighting for the ousted Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad was its dramatic moral fall. However, it would be unfair to completely strip this party of its essential component, the national resistance.

Although I have never been ideologically close to Hezbollah, I was inundated with a poignant sorrow when Hassan Nasrallah, the party’s third secretary general, was assassinated in one of the heaviest Israeli airstrikes. He was loosely likened to Che Guevara in many Arab minds and embodied activism and identification with social justice. His assassination brought back vividly my adolescence and early adulthood opinions and political leanings.

Remnants of sectarian divisions and clashes surface at each unstable occasion, proving how religion impacts politics and making the country vulnerable to an imminent internal conflict. Not this time! Different Lebanese parties and religious sects endeavored to protect civil peace and defeated plan(s) to drive a wedge between the country’s components. Occasionally, as a journalist, it felt frustrating to see some national media outlets’ approach in adopting repeatedly implicit and explicit impure key messages.

Geography is destiny. Lebanon, the 10452 km2, will always have a border with Israel. We are very optimistic the 27-November-2004 ceasefire agreement, that ended a 13-months conflict, will hold in the face of the frequent Israeli violations until the UN Security Council resolution 1701 gets fully re-implemented.

Randa El Ozeir, is a Canadian-Lebanese journalist who writes on health issues, women’s rights and social justice.

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 Kamo Sende and Idasemiebi Idaminabo
ABERDEEN, Scotland, Dec 17 2024 – The rhythmic swing of American climate policy has taken another dramatic turn. With Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency in mid-January next year, the international climate community will find itself bracing for what many fear will be another American exodus from the Paris Agreement.

This development, more than just another chapter in US political volatility, threatens to fundamentally reshape the global climate dialogue and potentially fracture an already fragile international consensus.

The story began hopefully in 2016 when the United States, under President Barack Obama, joined the Paris Agreement in a moment of seemingly decisive climate leadership. Yet, barely a year later, Trump withdrew, citing economic pressures and perceived disadvantages to American industry.

His successor, Joe Biden, made rejoining the agreement his first presidential act in 2021, attempting to restore American credibility in global climate efforts. Now, with Trump’s return to power, the international community watches with a mixture of resignation and concern as history appears poised to repeat itself.

For nations of the Global South, this pattern of engagement and disengagement reveals a stark truth about the climate conversation. What was once whispered in diplomatic corridors is now openly discussed in international forums: climate action for wealthy nations appears to be a luxury that can be discarded when economically inconvenient, while for developing nations it remains a matter of survival.

Why should a nation struggling to industrialise accept binding emissions targets when wealthy nations treat such commitments as optional?

In the bustling streets of Lagos, the flooded slums of Jakarta, and the drought-stricken farms of Honduras and Kenya, the American policy pendulum would predictably be viewed not just with frustration but with a deepening sense of betrayal.

These nations, contributing least to global emissions but suffering their worst effects, are watching as the world’s second-largest emitter treats climate commitments like reversible political decisions rather than existential imperatives.

If the pendulum were to swing again in January 2025, the impact on COP30 would be seismic, as conversations would inevitably tilt toward addressing this fundamental crisis of confidence. Developing nations, already sceptical of Western commitment to climate action, would have concrete evidence that even the most basic climate agreements can be subordinated to domestic political winds.

This reality would likely reshape negotiating positions fundamentally. After all, why should a nation struggling to industrialise accept binding emissions targets when wealthy nations treat such commitments as optional?

The economic argument that typically accompanies US withdrawal – that climate agreements disadvantage American workers and industry – rings particularly hollow in the Global South. These nations watch as their agricultural sectors collapse under changing weather patterns, their coastal cities face existential threats from rising seas, and their populations grapple with climate-induced displacement. For them, the economic costs of climate change aren’t future projections but present-day realities.

A turning point?

The looming reversal in American climate policy may well mark a turning point in global climate diplomacy, where COP30 risks becoming a parlour of academics rather than a forum for serious climate action. Developing nations are increasingly looking to forge their own path, seeking climate resilience strategies that don’t depend on the unreliable support of wealthy nations.

China’s growing influence in climate diplomacy, particularly in the Global South, gains additional momentum with each American reversal — all of this seems to rest on which way the Trump administration will go. The Trump presidency could decide the future of climate negotiations.

The international community now faces a critical question: how to build climate action frameworks that can withstand political volatility in key nations?

The answer may lie in decentralised cooperation, where cities, regions and non-state actors forge direct partnerships across borders. Already, networks of cities from both developed and developing nations are creating climate action partnerships that bypass national governments entirely.

The era of taking Western climate leadership for granted is over.

Yet, the fundamental issue remains unresolved. The original promise of the Paris Agreement was not just about emissions targets but about shared responsibility and trust between nations. The 2017 US withdrawal eroded this foundation, transforming what was meant to be a unified global response to climate change into an increasingly fractured and uncertain effort — if it happens again, this trust would be further eroded.

For the Global South, this pattern will confirm their deepest suspicions: that in the halls of power in developed nations, climate action remains fundamentally an economic conversation dressed in environmental rhetoric — indeed, echoing a pattern that has become visible since the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) was established in 1947.

As climate impacts intensify and the window for effective action narrows, this reality threatens not just the future of climate cooperation but the very premise of global environmental governance.

The path forward remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the era of taking Western climate leadership for granted is over. The Global South, faced with existential climate threats, can no longer afford to pin its hopes on the shifting political winds of wealthy nations.

The question now is not whether international climate action will continue, but what form it will take in a world where the most powerful nations’ commitments prove as changeable as the weather they’re supposedly trying to protect.

Kamo Sende is a Doctoral Researcher in Agri-Trade Law and Policy at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland. His work focuses on the intersection of agriculture, trade policy and climate change. Idasemiebi Idaminabo is a Doctoral Researcher in Climate Change Laws and Human Rights at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Source: International Politics and Society is 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 Stella Paul
RIYADH & HYDERABAD, Dec 17 2024 – The 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP 16) concluded early hours of Saturday with a renewed focus on building drought resilience globally. However, the COP also failed to agree on bringing a legally binding drought protocol. Like the biodiversity and climate change COPs held earlier in the year, COP16 also failed to finish in time and ended by postponing several key decisions to COP17 scheduled to be held in 2026.

The COP started on December 2 in Riyadh, under the presidency of Saudi Arabia. On Saturday, in a press statement, Osama Faqeeha, Deputy Minister for Environment, Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture, and Advisor to the UNCCD COP16 Presidency, claimed that the conference was a resounding success because it had attracted the largest number of participants till date, representing diverse sectors.

“The Riyadh Action Agenda has already helped galvanize state and non-state actors around the world. However, COP16 in Riyadh is just the beginning of its impact, and Saudi Arabia’s UNCCD COP16 Presidency will continue to engage with everyone, from the investment community, NGOs and scientists to Indigenous Peoples and farmers, to maximize its lasting global legacy,” he said.

One of the biggest success stories scripted in Riyadh was the launch of a drought resilience initiative, which also saw contributions of over USD 12 billion for land restoration and drought resilience. Launching the initiative on the first day of the COP, Saudi Arabia announced it was contributing USD 150 million for its operationalization. The rest of the fund was pledged by the Arab Coordination Group, which has 22 member countries, including the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. The initiative would aim to support 80 of the world’s most vulnerable countries to increase their capacity to combat the effects of drought and build their drought resilience.

“The Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership will work to deliver a transformative shift in how drought is tackled around the world. Harnessing the collective impact of major global institutions will move drought management beyond reactive crisis response through enhancing early warning systems, financing, vulnerability assessments, and drought risk mitigation. This stands to be a landmark moment for combating international drought, and we are calling on countries, companies, organizations, scientists, NGOs, financial institutions and communities to join this pivotal partnership,” Faqeeha said.

AI For Combating Drought

As part of the Riyadh Action Agenda, Saudi Arabia’ also launched the International Drought Resilience Observatory (IDRO). This is the first artificial intelligence-driven global platform that will help countries assess and improve their ability to cope with more severe droughts. This innovative tool is an initiative of the International Drought Resilience Alliance (IDRA).

Saudi Arabia also announced the launch of an international sand and dust storm monitoring initiative. This effort, part of a regional early warning system, aims to complement existing efforts overseen by the World Meteorological Organization. Based in Jeddah, the Sand and Dust Storm Warning Advisory and Assessment System (SDS-WAS) increases the number of global World Meteorological Organization-affiliated nodes to four. Saudi Arabia also pledged $10 million in funding over the next five years to enhance early warning systems in countries currently unable to monitor for sand and dust storms.

However, despite their best efforts, the COP16 could not bring all negotiators to agree on its proposal of creating a legally binding treaty for action on drought. The protocol, if agreed upon, could have been a huge step forward, having the world’s first legally binding global treaty on drought, land degradation and desertification, equivalent to the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework.

Paving Greater Participation of Youths and IPLCs

Among the other decisions taken at the COP16 is the creation of a Youth Caucus and an Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Caucus. Though a caucus within the COP has an advisory role without any voting power, it can help broaden the participation of the Indigenous people and provide an opportunity to them for lobbying for language concerning Indigenous issues in the future negotiation texts.

Reacting to the development, Jennifier Corpuz, leader of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), an umbrella organization of Indigenous Peoples and local communities from seven global regions, said that it was a decision that had been long overdue.

“The decision by the UNCCD to support the development of a Terms of Reference for an Indigenous Peoples Caucus and a local communities caucus is a great development for enhancing rights-holder engagement in the work of the UNCCD. It is the last Rio Convention to support the establishment of an IP Caucus and the first to explicitly support a specific local community Caucus, so it is about time, even long overdue. The hope is that the new UNCCD IP and LC caucuses learn from the nest practices and enhanced participation arrangements established in the other Rio Conventions and avoid the mistakes,” Corpuz told IPS News.

UN Warns Against Business-As-Usual Approach

Meanwhile, throughout COP16 in Riyadh, the UNCCD released several major publications highlighting the urgency of tackling land degradation, desertification and drought. The UNCCD’s financial risk assessment flagged that presently there is a $278 billion annual shortfall in funding for land restoration and drought resilience and emphasized the urgent need for private sector engagement.

The UNCCD also issued a landmark report into the growing global expansion of drylands, finding three-quarters of the Earth’s land became permanently drier over the last three decades. In addition, the rate of land degradation has rapidly increased. As a result, there are now 1.6 billion hectares of degraded land instead of 1 billion hectares in 2015. This means the convention’s flagship program, Land Degradation Neutrality, which aims to restore all degraded land by 2023, now also urgently needs a greater level of efforts as there is now half a billion more hectares to be restored. If this was to be achieved, the parties must shun their business-as-usual approach and put greater focus on land restoration, said Ibrahim Thiaw, the Executive Secretary of UNCCD.

“Land Degradation Neutrality is an ambition that was adopted in 2015 based on the science and it is still valid. If we manage to achieve it as it was conceived in 2015, that is a big step forward. Unfortunately, with more recent studies and data, we realized that we need to restore even more land by 2030 than it was envisaged in 2015. It doesn’t change or diminish the importance of the decision made in 2015. Because now we have updated science, we know that we need to restore 1.5 billion hectares of land instead of 1 billion hectares by 2030 in order to have equilibrium in the world. So basically, we have science to tell the decision-makers of the world that business as usual does not work,” Thiaw told IPS News.

The next UNCCD COP will be held in 2026 under the presidency of the Government of Mongolia. With the most ambitious of the decision—a global drought protocol—left unreached, onus is now on the UN to build a consensus among parties on a global drought agreement before they convene at COP17.

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 Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 17 2024 – The new geopolitics after the first Cold War undermines peace, sustainability, and human development. Hegemonic priorities continue to threaten humanity’s well-being and prospects for progress.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

End of first Cold War
The end of the first Cold War has been interpreted in various ways, most commonly as a US triumph. Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed the ‘end of history’ with the victory of capitalism and liberal democracy.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and allied regimes, the US seemed unchallenged and unchallengeable in the new ‘unipolar’ world. The influential US journal Foreign Affairs termed ensuing US foreign policy ‘sovereigntist’.

But the new order also triggered fresh discontent. Caricaturing cultural differences, Samuel Huntington blamed a ‘clash of civilisations’. His contrived cultural categories serve a new ‘divide-and-rule’ strategy.

Today’s geopolitics often associates geographic and cultural differences with supposed ideological, systemic and other political divides. Such purported fault lines have also fed ‘identity politics’.

The new Cold War is hot and bloody in parts of the world, sometimes spreading quickly. As bellicosity is increasingly normalised, hostilities have grown dangerously.

Economic liberalisation, including globalisation, has been unevenly reversed since the turn of the century. Meanwhile, financialization has undermined the real economy, especially industry.

The G20 finance ministers, representing the world’s twenty largest economies, including several from the Global South, began meeting after the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

The G20 began meeting at the heads of government level following the 2008 global financial crisis, which was seen as a G7 failure. However, the G20’s relevance has declined again as the North reasserted G7 centrality with the new Cold War.

NATO rules
The ostensible raison d’être of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has gone with the end of the first Cold War and the Soviet Union.

The faces of Western powers have also changed. For example, the G5 grew to become the G7 in 1976. US infatuation with the post-Soviet Russia of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin even brought it into the G8 for some years!

Following the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the sovereigntist Wolfowitz doctrine of 2007 redefined its foreign policy priorities to strengthen NATO and start a new Cold War. NATO mobilisation of Europe – behind the US against Russia – now supports Israel targeting China, Iran and others.

Violating the UN Charter, the 2022 Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine united and strengthened NATO and Europe behind the US. Despite earlier tensions across the north Atlantic, Europe rallied behind Biden against Russia despite its high costs.

International law has also not stopped NATO expansion east to the Russian border. The US unilaterally defines new international norms, often ignoring others, even allies. But Trump’s re-election has raised ‘centrist’ European apprehensions.

Developing countries were often forced to take sides in the first Cold War, ostensibly waged on political and ideological grounds. With mixed economies now ubiquitous, the new Cold War is certainly not over capitalism.

Instead, rivalrous capitalist variants shape the new geoeconomics as state variations underlie geopolitics. Authoritarianism, communist parties and other liberal dirty words are often invoked for effect.

New Europe
Despite her controversial track record during her first term as the European Commission (EC) president, Ursula von der Leyen is now more powerful and belligerent in her second term.

She quickly replaced Joseph Borrell, her previous EC Vice President and High Representative in charge of international relations. Borrell described Europe as a garden that the Global South, the surrounding jungle, wants to invade.

For Borrell, Europe cannot wait for the jungle to invade. Instead, it must pre-emptively attack the jungle to contain the threat. Since the first Cold War, NATO has made more, mainly illegal military interventions, increasingly outside Europe!

The US, UK, German, French and Australian navies are now in the South China Sea despite the 1973 ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) commitment to a ZOPFAN (zone of peace, freedom and neutrality) and no request from any government in the region.

Cold War nostalgia
The first Cold War also saw bloody wars involving alleged ‘proxies’ in southwestern Africa, Central America, and elsewhere. Yet, despite often severe Cold War hostilities, there were also rare instances of cooperation.

In 1979, the Soviet Union challenged the US to eradicate smallpox within a decade. US President Jimmy Carter accepted the challenge. In less than ten years, smallpox was eradicated worldwide, underscoring the benefits of cooperation.

Official development assistance (ODA) currently amounts to around 0.3% of rich countries’ national incomes. This is less than half the 0.7% promised by wealthy nations at the UN in 1970.

The end of the first Cold War led to ODA cuts. Levels now are below those after Thatcher and Reagan were in power in the 1980s. Trump’s views and famed ‘transactional approach’ to international relations are expected to cut aid further.

The economic case against the second Cold War is clear. Instead of devoting more to sustainable development, scarce resources go to military spending and related ‘strategic’ priorities.

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 CIVICUS
Dec 17 2024 –  
CIVICUS speaks with Ramón Zamora, son of Guatemalan journalist José Rubén Zamora, about restrictions on press freedom and the challenges of defending human rights in Guatemala.

Rubén Zamora is part of the CIVICUS Stand as My Witness campaign, which seeks the release of unjustly imprisoned human rights defenders. The veteran journalist, founder of Periódico Siglo 21 and renowned for his investigations into corruption, has been fighting unfounded accusations of money laundering for over two years. His legal situation took a turn for the worse recently when a court ordered his return to prison after a brief period of house arrest. As his family prepared to appeal, President Bernardo Arévalo denounced the court’s decision as an attack on freedom of expression.

Ramón Zamora

What was your father’s role in Guatemalan journalism and what led him to antagonise powerful forces?

My father comes from a family of journalists. His grandfather, Clemente Marroquín, was the founder of La Hora, one of the most important newspapers in Guatemalan history. In 1990, my father founded the media outlet Siglo 21. A transition to democracy was underway and he had understood that democracy couldn’t function without real freedom of expression, that is, when people aren’t able to express their ideas without fear. That’s why it was important to have a media outlet that, on top of providing information, also included a plurality of voices.

Siglo 21 opened up spaces for leftist thought, which earned it threats and attacks from sources linked to the army. In addition, from the outset it dealt with sensitive issues, which quickly put it in the crosshairs of many powerful figures. Threats and attacks soon followed for his investigations into corruption. In 1993, following a coup by then President Jorge Serrano Elías, who suspended the constitution and dissolved Congress, the presidential security service came looking for my father and the family was forced into hiding. However, my father continued to fight, publishing a banned edition of Siglo 21, which had been censored, and sharing information with international media.

After leaving Siglo 21, he founded El Periódico in 1996 and Nuestro Diario in 1998, always with the aim of continuing to investigate corruption. His investigations led to the jailing of several powerful people. Over the years he suffered arbitrary treatment, assassination attempts and kidnappings, but he continued his work, until 2022, when he was arbitrarily arrested and sentenced in retaliation for exposing corruption in the government of Alejandro Giammattei.

What were the charges that sent your father to prison?

He was accused of money laundering, extortion and influence peddling. It was alleged that he used the newspaper and his access to government sources to obtain privileged information to extort money from businesspeople and public officials. According to government officials, my father threatened to publish stories in the newspaper if they did not comply with his demands, and allegedly laundered the money from these extortions through the newspaper.

To understand the justification for his arrest, we need to consider the broader context of attacks on the newspaper. Since 2013, the newspaper has suffered economic pressure and threats from government officials, such as then Vice-president Roxana Baldetti, who called our clients to threaten them with investigations if they continued to support the newspaper with advertising. This reduced the paper’s income by more than half. To get around the pressure, my father finally started accepting donations from people who wanted to remain anonymous. This was one of the reasons he was accused of laundering undeclared money. My father was criminalised for defending freedom of expression and denouncing corruption.

How did your father experience these years of arbitrary detention?

At first it was very hard because he was held in a military prison, in a very small cell, completely isolated from other prisoners. In the same prison were people convicted of corruption thanks to the reporting he had published, which put him in great danger. He soon started receiving constant threats.

In the first few days, his cell was searched several times, and bedbugs found their way into his bed, causing severe bites all over his body. He was unable to sleep because of the constant noise, as there was construction going on next to his cell. It was all very stressful, both physically and emotionally. There were times when he thought he would never get out alive. To make matters worse, we were often denied authorisation to enter the prison or given ridiculous excuses, which kept him in a constant state of uncertainty.

He also suffered greatly during court hearings. There was one judge who went out of his way to prevent him having access to a proper defence. We had to change lawyers several times and many of them were persecuted for defending my father.

My brother and I worked to keep the newspaper afloat, even though several journalists were forced into exile. A few months ago we managed to get my father released to house arrest, but his case continued to be full of irregularities and a month later the benefit of house arrest was lifted. We are still waiting for the appeals court to review the decision, but it is likely he will have to return to prison this week or next. My father is still fighting for his freedom and a fair trial to prove his innocence.

How can the international community help?

The international community has played a very important role in the whole process. We were able to get my father out of prison in large part because of pressure from organisations such as Amnesty International, CIVICUS, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and others who spoke out and mobilised.

As a family, we have always felt supported. We are now awaiting the resolution of the amparo appeal – a petition to protect constitutional rights, which could allow my father to continue his struggle from home. This would be ideal, although we are still awaiting a final decision.

The international community must continue to defend human rights and freedom of expression and support the media, particularly in countries where corruption and impunity prevail.

Get in touch
Website
Twitter

See also
Guatemala: ‘Corrupt elites see defenders of justice as a threat to their interests and try to silence them’ Interview with Virginia Laparra 30.Aug.2024
Guatemala: ‘Disregard for the will of the people expressed at the ballot box is the greatest possible insult to democracy’ Interview with Jorge Santos 13.Jan.2023
Guatemala: ‘Our democracy is at risk in the hands of political-criminal networks’ Interview with Evelyn Recinos Contreras 04.Jul.2023

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’);