News

Merkel Scolds Putin on NGOs

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

HANNOVER, Germany – During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the opening of the Hannover Industry Trade Fair, the world’s biggest industry show, on Sunday, the Chancellor called on Moscow to give non-governmental organizations (NGOs) “a good chance in Russia.”

Putin’s visit to Germany and the Netherlands to focus on trade and business has been overshadowed by his harsh political crackdowns on NGOs at home. (Photo Courtesy of The Local)

In a speech to the trade fair in Hannover, Merkel said in front of Putin that while Germany wants to encourage Russian economic diversity and innovation, NGOs are a healthy component of that plan.  “We believe this can happen most successfully when there is an active civil society,” she said, “We must intensify these discussions, develop our ideas, and we must give the NGOs, who we know as a motor for innovation, a good chance in Russia.”

Throughout Putin’s visit, protestors rallied against his recent policies.  Outside the trade fair, some protestors showed their support for NGOs, while others carried Syrian flags or wore devil masks, waving images of Putin dressed in a prisoner’s striped uniform. One banner read, “Stop political terror.”

President Putin defended the ongoing Russian investigations into NGOs on German television, claiming Russians had a right to know which NGOs were receiving foreign funds “and for what”.

Russian authorities have conducted a storm of unannounced inspections of NGOs in Russia, which appear intended to intimidate these groups.  In the last weeks, more than 200 Russian NGOs, as well as foreign organizations, including Amnesty International, Transparency International, and at least two German political foundations, have received surprise inspections by Russian police, tax inspectors, and prosecutors.  The crackdown on Russian civil society has drawn widespread international criticism.

The two German NGOs: the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) in St Petersburg and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) in Moscow, are of significant political importance to Germany’s political parties because the KAS think tank is linked to Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrats, while the FES is particularly close to the main German opposition, the Social Democrats.

While Germany has maintained a close relationship with Russia in many areas, including business and trade, foreign investment, energy security, and cultural issues, Chancellor Merkel has previously emphasized the importance of human rights and the rule of law.  She has furthermore come under pressure to address her concerns to Putin, not only on the NGO inspections, but also regarding Syria and Russia’s criticism of the German-orchestrated financial bailout of Cyprus.  As explained by Human Rights watch, Russia’s domestic repression of NGOs erodes the foundations of its foreign relationships.

“Trade fairs are about doing business, but Merkel should make clear to Putin that it cannot be business as usual for Germany’s relations with Russia until the attacks on civil society stop,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

President Putin is also scheduled to visit Amsterdam on Monday.  Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has also been called upon to demand Putin halt the NGO inspections.  Germany and the Netherlands are Russia’s biggest trading partners.

Williamson further said, “This is the worst crackdown in Russia in 20 years. It is admirable to promote deeper understanding between Russia and the Netherlands, but this has very little meaning if vital parts of Russian society cannot express themselves freely.”

For further information, please see:

Al Jazeera – Merkel Chides Putin Over NGO Inspections – 7 April 2013

BBC News – Angela Merkel Tells Vladimir Putin – Russia Needs NGOs – 7 April 2013

Returns – Russia Needs Active Civil Society, Merkel Tells Putin – 7 April 213

The Local – Merkel ‘Should Push Putin for Reforms’ – 6 April 2013

HRW – Russia: Merkel, Rutte Should Press Putin on Rights – 4 April 2013

Serbia-Kosovo Normalization Talks Break Down

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BRUSSELS, Belgium – On Tuesday, E.U.-brokered normalization talks in Brussels between leaders from Serbia and Kosovo broke down early after a final 12-hour negotiation session.  Although many countries have recognized Kosovo, a former Serbian province, since its declaration of independence in 2008, Serbia has refused.  As both sides failed to come to an agreement, mediator and E.U. foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, released a statement saying that the gap between the two was “very narrow, but deep.”

Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dacic, left. (Photo Courtesy of b92)

Tuesday’s session concluded the eighth in several EU-guided rounds of talks since October 2012. Both Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dacic and Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Thaci intended to return home and consult with colleagues about what further steps could be taken.

Serbian Prime Minister Dacic explained to the Serbian media, “Despite all these long meetings, we do not have an agreement at this moment.”

The critical sticking point between Serbia and Kosovo is the political status of ethnic Serbs in Northern Kosovo.  Kosovo’s proposals, in accordance with its laws and constitution, were aimed at integrating all citizens, including ethnic Serbs, into Kosovo.

However, according to Kosovo’s Prime Minister Thaci, Serbia was not ready to agree upon this term and requested more time. “Unfortunately from the Serbians, we still have hesitation and stances which are not based on principles,” Thaci said. “They have asked for additional time and additional consultations which is within their autonomous authority.”

Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, right. (Photo Courtesy of RFE/RL)

However, after a meeting of the Serbian leadership, Serbian Presidential adviser Marko Djuric said that it was the ethnic Albanian officials from Kosovo who rejected the Serb proposals during the Brussels negotiations.

Serbian officials desire a high level of political autonomy for Kosovo’s Serbs, including police and judicial authorities particular to the Northern Serbs.  However, Kosovo would consider this arrangement to be an unacceptable de facto partition of the country, which would risk the North eventually breaking away.

Even so, Kosovo’s government in Pristina already has a tense relation with its ethnic northern Serbs.  Some 50,000 people in and around the divided city of Mitrovica identified ethnically as Serbian, do not follow the authority of Pristina and instead have created parallel institutions, e.g., hospitals and schools, which are financed and supported by Serbia’s capital, Belgrade.  The tension in this region has led to violence in recent years, particularly along the border shared with Serbia.

The E.U. has attempted to mitigate conflict in the region by playing a supervisory role through its Eulex rule-of-law mission.  Furthermore, soldiers from E.U. states have been deployed in Kosovo as part of the K-For peacekeeping mission.

The ultimate success of the normalization talks is particularly important to Serbia because in order for Serbia to join the E.U. it must normalize relations with its neighbors, including Kosovo.  Normalization includes not only resolving issues such as trade and border control, but also establishing the status of northern Kosovo and acknowledging whether or not the region will be under the authority of the government of Kosovo in Pristina

There is still hope that an agreement may be reached within the next days.  Nevertheless, mediator Catherine Ashton said last Tuesday was the last formal meeting she would call between the parties.

“They will now both go back and consult with their colleagues in their capitals and will let me know in the next few days of their decision,” She said in a statement.

If an agreement is to be reached, it will need to be arrived at by April 9.  Apparently, the E.U. in Brussels has suggested a compromise to the countries, but this proposal has not been disclosed to the public.  However, speculation from a Serbian newspaper is that the compromise would be based on the 1995 Erdut Agreement with an interim E.U. administration for the northern region.  However, if accurate, the result of such an agreement would be that the northern region of Kosovo would temporarily have a different status in the community of Serb municipalities in Kosovo until it accepted Pristina’s authority.

For further information, please see:

b92 – Belgrade to decide on EU’s offer by April 9 – 4 April 2013

RFE/RL – Serbia Blames Kosovo For Failed Talks – 4 April 2013

RFE/RL – Serbia-Kosovo Talks End Without Deal – 4 April 2013

Al Jazeera – Serbia-Kosovo Talks End Without Accord – 2 April 2013

BBC News – Serbia-Kosovo Talks Fail to Reach Accord in Brussels – 2 April 2013

RFE/RL – Serbia, Kosovo Resume Normalization Talks – 2 April 2013

Egyptian law Could Kill NGOs

By Justin Dorman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

CAIRO, Egypt – Under Mubarak, NGOs were sterilized by lengthy application processes that lasted years in which a group could not truly act for fear of having their application rejected. Under the military dictatorship, NGO staffers were targeted and arrested. Despite the 2011 uprising, Egypt again may see the day where NGOs are rendered impotent if the parliament’s latest draft law becomes implemented.

Egyptian aid agencies, like the one pictured above helping Libyan refugees, may lose their effectiveness with the passing of a new bill by the Shura council. (Photo Courtesy of the Guardian)

The new draft law would require any international NGO to request permission from an Egyptian committee, consisting of state security officials, before the taking of every action. This committee could reject the NGOs action as counterintuitive to Egypt’s public morals, development goals, and national unity. Furthermore, local groups who receive foreign aid would additionally require authorization by this committee to act. Marwan Abi Samra, head of the democratic governance for the United Nations in Egypt, estimates that over the past decade that ninety percent of all funding for local human rights groups has come from abroad.

Bahey al-Deeen Hassan, the head of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies explains that, “the law is an obvious bid to shift the civil working organizations from non-governmental to governmental societies.” He goes on to state that the draft proposal is “‘the worst law’ that had been drafted in the history of NGOs in Egypt.”

The Egyptian program director at the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Mohamed Zaree, feels betrayed. He says that when he was a participant in the Tahrir Square uprising, “the demands of the revolution were bread and freedom and social justice. Not bread and freedom and restricting the work of NGOs.”

The United Nations and European Union hate this law as proposed, as does the international human rights group, Human Rights Watch. The Egyptian director at Human Rights Watch, Heba Morayef, stated that the law, “haw very vague language that gives the government discretion to halt any activities that it doesn’t agree with substantively.”

While the committee may not completely reject the activities of an NGO, bureaucracy could bring the effectiveness of the NGO to a screeching halt. Gasser Abdel-Razek, the associate director at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, believes that ultimately the NGO will “really waste a lot of [its] resources in keeping [it]self alive, rather than in contributing to whatever [it] set out to do.”

Heba Morayef conjectures that one area this law may immediately hurt is women’s rights. She believes that it is a prerogative of the Muslim Brotherhood to not grant women any more basic rights and can envision a group whose mission is to work on women’s rights being told by this special committee that women’s rights is not a priority in Egypt and that the group should find something else to do.

It is vital for a human rights group to be able to act independently of the government which it is analyzing, condemning, or seeking to benefit. This law would destroy that independence, and any likely destroy any good that an NGO could do in Egypt.

For further information, please see:

Coast Week – NGOs Bill Sparks Fears in Egypt Over Freedom Restrictions – 5 April 2013

Guardian – Human Rights Groups Fear Impact of Draft Egypt law Restricting Their Work – 5 April 2013

Egypt Independent – UN Experts Condemn Shura Council’s NGO Bill – 28 March 2013

Al Monitor – Egypt’s NGOs Face new Strictures Under Ruling Party – 14 March 2013

U.N. Approves First Global Arms Treaty

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

NEW YORK, United States – On Tuesday, the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly voted 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) to adopt a landmark treaty controlling trade in conventional arms.

The treaty will control trade believed to be worth $70 billion (£46 billion) annually, and according to Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International, “In the next four years, the annual trade in conventional weapons, ammunition and components and parts will exceed $100 billion. But today, states have put human beings and their security first.” (Photo Courtesy of the New York Times)

The treaty, seven years in the making, places prohibitions on exports of conventional weapons in violation of arms embargoes, or which the exporting state assesses could be used for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, organized crimes, or terrorism.  States must also act to prevent conventional weapons from reaching the black market.

Anna Macdonald, head of Oxfam’s campaign on arms control, described the treaty as “for the millions of people whose lives have fallen apart because of armed violence every day, from Guatemala to Kenya, Jamaica, Albania and a whole range of other countries.”

As the first major arms accord since the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the new regulations will cover exports of small arms and light weapons, as well as tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, military jets, attack helicopters, warships, battleships, missiles, and missile launchers.  The same type of international controls will be applied as currently govern nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  The treaty does not place prohibitions on imports, however.

Furthermore, the agreement has no power over the domestic weapons trade in any country.  It will require national regulations controlling the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers, however.

“The world has been waiting a long time for this historic treaty. After long years of campaigning, most states have agreed to adopt a global treaty that can prevent the flow of arms into countries where they will be used to commit atrocities,” said Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International, from the UN conference in New York.

Unfortunately, the arms treaty may lack teeth.  While it will be legally binding on those countries that ratify it, the treaty does not provide for an enforcement agency.  This leaves each signatory responsible for self-enforcement through the passage of new laws.  Supporters argue, however, that the stigma of breaking international law will provide a sufficient deterrent to illegal arms trades.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was asked on behalf of nations backing the treaty to put it to a vote in the General Assembly on Tuesday.

Several major arms nations signed the treaty, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany.  Several emerging weapon trading countries also signed such as South Africa and Brazil.  African countries showed particularly strong support, with many of their governments emphasizing that in the long run, the treaty would curb arms sales that had fueled many conflicts on the continent.

Three members of the U.N. voted in opposition: Syria, Iran, and North Korea.  Iran and North Korea are under arms embargoes, while Syria’s government, fighting a two-year civil war, depends upon arms from Russia and Iran.  Syria argued that a draft of the treaty failed to refer to the arming of “non-state terrorist groups”.  Iran claimed the treaty was filled “loopholes” and ignored the “legitimate demand” to prohibit the transfer of arms to those who committed aggression, while North Korea purported it was unbalanced, saying the treaty would allow exporters to deny arms to importers that have a right to legitimate self-defense.

The dissent of the three prevented a consensus last week at a U.N. treaty-drafting conference, which forced a vote by the General Assembly on Tuesday.

“Despite Iran, North Korea and Syria’s deeply cynical attempt to stymie it, the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations have shown resounding support for this lifesaving treaty with human rights protection at its core,” said Brian Wood.

Abstaining were some of the world’s largest exporters: Russia and China.  The former cited concerns about ambiguities, such as how the terms like genocide would be defined.

“Having the abstentions from two major arms exporters lessens the moral weight of the treaty,” said Nic Marsh, a proponent with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo.  However, he noted, “By abstaining they have left their options open.”

The United States and Russia remain the largest suppliers of international arms. (Photo Courtesy of BBC News)

Other abstainers included Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and other countries, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are supplying weapons to Syrian opposition groups.  India, a major arms importer, also abstained, citing concerns tis current trade contracts could be blocked.

In Washington, U.S. President Obama’s administration welcomed the treaty, which Secretary of State John Kerry described as “strong, effective, and implementable.”  He further stated the treaty would “strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.”

Mexico released a statement on behalf of 98 U.N. members, declaring that “an effective implementation of this treaty will make a real difference for the people of the world.”

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “The world wanted this treaty and would not be thwarted by the few who sought to prevent the introduction of robust, effective and legally-binding controls on the international trade in weapons.”

However, the arms treaty almost did not come into fruition before the U.N.  Last year, treaty discussions fell apart when the United States, followed by Russia and China, backed out, claiming they needed more time to consider the issues.  For the U.S., 2012 was a critical presidential election year, and the Obama administration was under considerable domestic pressure from the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) led gun lobby.

Presently, the N.R.A. has vowed to prevent the ratification of the treaty by the Senate, claiming it will undermine domestic gun-ownership rights.  More than 50 senators have already indicated their opposition.  However, the U.N. asserts that the treaty will have no impact on domestic gun sale legislation.  Furthermore, as a concession to the United States, an earlier draft of the treaty was modified to remove a provision requiring states to record importation of ammunition and to prevent the ammunition from being diverted to other countries.

Countries will decide individually whether or not to sign and ratify the treaty.  It will become internationally effective 90 days after the 50th ratification, which may take two to three years.

“This is not a panacea, it is not going to solve all problems overnight but it is an important step. We have seen time and again that international treaties affect the behavior even of those states who fail to sign up,” Anna Macdonald said.

For further information, please see:

Al Jazeera – UN Adopts Landmark Arms Treaty – 3 April 2013

Amnesty International – UN Puts Human Rights at Heart of Historic Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

BBC News – UN Passes Historic Arms Trade Treaty by Huge Majority – 28 April 2013

The Guardian – UN Approves First Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013

The New York Times – U.N. Treaty Is First Aimed at Regulating Global Arms Sales – 2 April 2013

Returns – U.N. Overwhelmingly Approves Global Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

The Washington Post – U.N. Approves Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013

Saudi Women Free to Ride Bikes Without Restrictions . . . April Fools

By Justin Dorman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – This past week it was announced that women in Saudi Arabia would be allowed to ride bicycles and motorbikes. This was another extremely small step, for women in ultraconservative Islamic Saudi Arabia.

Women in Saudi Arabia can now ride bicycles in appropriate public areas as long as they are accompanied by a male relative and fully covered. (Photo Courtesy of Foreign Policy Blog)

In order to fight unemployment, in the 1980s, British politician Norman Tebbit would advise the unemployed to “get on yer bike” and look for a job. This is far from what the religious police were intending. It would be very unlikely that they would suggest to a women to get a job, and would certainly not advocate that stance without the consent of her male relatives.

Nor is the grant for women to ride bicycles related, in any sense, to any use of bicycles as a vehicle for transportation. The impetus for the allowance was to give women some form of entertainment in which they can pass time. It would be too good to be true if this magnificent source of fun did not come without its restrictions. The religious police have stipulated that women may only ride their bicycles in recreational areas like parks, that they must be wearing full head-to-toe Islamic garb, and that they must always be accompanied by a male relative. Additionally, it was suggested that they avoid riding in places in which young men may congregate and harass such women.

Saudi Arabia’s religious police chief found this whole matter fairly comical. He stated that no one really rides bicycles in Saudi Arabia so that it was never truly considered whether or not there was actually a ban on women from riding in the first place.

It may be difficult to consider the right to ride bicycles a real freedom considering women can only do so when confined to certain areas, properly chaperoned, and properly covered; but, it can still be considered a slight progress in what might be the golden age for women in ultraconservative Saudi Arabia. Last year, Sarah Attar, a Saudi Arabian woman, became the first to be allowed to compete in the Olympics. Two years ago, King Abdullah granted women the right to vote, and to run in municipal elections starting in 2015.  Over the past year, King Abdullah also appointed thirty women to Saudi Arabia’s Shura Council.

While bicycle riding may not be very important in Saudi Arabia, we should still consider the rotation of each woman’s tire as part of a revolution.

For further information, please see:

Foreign Policy Blog – Saudi Women Might not be Allowed to Ride Bikes After all – 3 April 2013

Guardian – Saudi Women are Allowed to Cycle – but Only Around in Circles – 3 April 2013

Time – Saudi Women Can Now Ride Bicycles in Public (Kind of) – 3 April 2013

Al Jazeera – Saudi Arabia Eases ban on Women Riding Bikes – 2 April 2013