Special Features

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: Statement on United States President Trump’s “Extreme Vetting” of Refugees

Statement on United States President Trump’s “Extreme Vetting” of Refugees

Yesterday, 27 January, United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning all refugees, migrants and visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries – Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The ban is grievously discriminatory, effectively targeting and blocking lawful entry into the United States to people on the basis of religion, a practice that is explicitly outlawed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It is also a direct violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that parties shall accept refugees “without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin,” and the 1967 Protocol, of which the United States is a signatory.
At a time when more than 65 million people around the world are displaced by persecution, conflict and mass atrocities, the ban is an affront to the moral principles that the United States has carved in stone on its national monuments. For generations, refugees and asylum seekers have found refuge from persecution in the United States. Yesterday’s executive order is a repudiation of that proud tradition. The ban especially targets 4.8 million Syrian refugees, who represent one of the most vulnerable populations on earth, denying them any possibility of entering the United States.
For more than five years the people of Syria have suffered war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Syrian government, and enabled by their Russian and Iranian allies. Syrian civilians have also faced beheading, execution and even crucifixion by armed extremist groups like Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and the so-called Islamic State. These crimes under international law have been widely documented by the UN’s independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria. The United States has a responsibility to protect the men, women and children who have fled these atrocities, not to scapegoat, arbitrarily block and illegally bar them from its shores.
The fact that President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” was promulgated on International Holocaust Remembrance Day is especially egregious. The Nazi’s mass murder of 6 million Jews, along with Roma and other targeted victims, was the moral nadir of the twentieth century. In remembering the Holocaust we not only acknowledge its specific origins in murderous anti-Semitism, but also that it was a product of discriminatory laws and exclusionary policies. The fact that so many Jewish victims of the Holocaust were refused asylum in the United States and other countries during the 1930s is a source of enduring shame.
Seventy-two years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Holocaust continues to provide essential lessons regarding human rights and practices that violate human dignity. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect will continue working with our civil society colleagues in the United States and raise this issue at the United Nations and beyond, until such time as President Trump’s shameful and illegal ban on Muslims is repudiated and rescinded.

Human Rights Watch: Just the Facts

Trump Policies Roll Back Rights
After one full week in office, there is no longer room for doubt: the disturbing proposals that marked President Trump’s campaign are swiftly becoming reality.

Top members of Trump’s administration wasted no time this week baptizing lies with a new name: “alternative facts.” But in this dark new era of “post-truth,” you can count on Human Rights Watch to stand as a collective force for principle, fact, and reason.

Here are a few facts we’d like to share:

  • Fact #1: Two days after some 5 million people marched demanding respect for women’s rights across the globe, Trump signed an executive order that will threaten women’s lives.
    The “Global Gag Rule” prohibits international aid to groups that in any way engage with abortion. It will restrict women’s choices and censor critical health options in clinics worldwide. This destructive policy will contribute to unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and more women dying around the world.
  • Fact #2: Trump signed executive orders on immigration and border policy that could severely harm millions of immigrants and US citizens.
    These actions not only put in motion the construction of a proposed border wall extension between the US and Mexico, but set the stage for the expansion of abusive fast-track deportation procedures and overly-broad enforcement laws that could terrorize communities and break families apart.
  • Fact #3: Just yesterday, Trump approved an executive order to temporarily ban nationals of some Muslim-majority countries from entering the US that could intensify xenophobia.
    Not only will the executive order heighten discrimination against affected communities and fail to address national security threats, but Trump’s plan is sure to alienate US allies and wrongly send a message to autocratic regimes that policies like this are acceptable. They are not.
This new wave of attacks threatens our core rights values. But we will not stay silent. We will continue to expose and defend the truth.

Today — and every day — Human Rights Watch will stand up for truth, analyze impacts of harmful policies, and hold President Trump to account.

We’re all in this together. Thank you for standing with us when it’s needed most.

Grace Meng
Senior Researcher, US Program
Human Rights Watch
@Grace_Meng

ICTJ: Human Rights Movement Must Come Together to Resist Trump’s Agenda

Human Rights Movement Must Come Together to Resist Trump’s Agenda

By David Tolbert, ICTJ President
Donald Trump’s inaugural speech has fittingly been described, as “dystopian,” as “dark,” as “a declaration of war.” The new president made no call for unity, did not reach out to a soul not already in his camp — despite losing the popular vote by almost 3 million votes — nor uttered a word to bring together a fractured nation or address a world deeply nervous at his ascension to the most powerful of offices.

In the first few days as president, his actions mirrored his words. Trump has rushed headlong into creating further divisions and has begun an assault on human rights and basic decency — including a de facto ban on many Muslim refugees from entering the United States and the resurrection of CIA “black sites“ — and promises more to come.

The new president exalts torture, mocks the disabled, casts aspersions on those who defend human rights, appeals to racist sentiments through coded and not-so-coded language and denigrates women in both word and deed. He shows no regard for the Geneva Conventions or the painstaking work of generations of human rights activists, many of them American, to ensure that civilians are not abused in times of conflict and that the vulnerable are protected.

For good measure, he seems to demean virtually every restraint that protects the citizen from the state. His first call as president to a foreign leader was to President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who crushed the protests against army rule, devastated Egypt’s civil society with draconian laws targeting human rights defenders and turned Egypt’s legal institutions into “kangaroo courts.” A chilling signal indeed.

Say what you will, Trump has clearly laid down the gauntlet that places the most powerful of nations on the side of the privileged and signals that human rights will be honored only in the breach. This can hardly be a surprise, given his campaign rhetoric that called openly for torture and other serious crimes that violate international and domestic law.

For me, the nadir of Trump’s remarks in front of the Capitol echoed his campaign: “From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.” This phrase — “American First” — is a term loaded with historical meaning, dating back to Charles Lindbergh and the “America First” movement of the 1930s. At first blush it indicates a withdrawal from the world, but that movement is also strongly associated with anti-Semitism, racism and the white nationalism that is espoused by some of Trump’s closest advisers.

The new president’s inaugural speech was encased in other nationalistic slogans, most prominently “Make America Great Again,” harkening back, at least rhetorically, to what many minorities, women and marginalized people remember as days stained by segregation, hate and discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation.

I started my life in segregated schools in North Carolina and have seen up close the country’s failure to protect an array of minorities and to implement the promises of the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Racial injustice continues to be a heavy burden on this country, as the events of Ferguson and elsewhere have shown. Much needs to be done to address the still-open sore of mass incarceration of African-Americans, police violence and a litany of other abuses of police power, as so well-articulated by the Black Lives Matter movement and other activists. Trump has no answer to this problem; instead, he demonizes minorities and callously rejects their legitimate demands.

Trump is on a road to undermine the progress that has been achieved. His appointment to the Supreme Court will certainly aim to undercut the steps that the court has taken over the past 60 years to, haltingly, make the Bill of Rights not simply a promise but gradually more of a reality. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the promissory note of the Bill of Rights has gradually been paid down, but in Trump’s vision this will stop now: One must have “total allegiance to the United States of America,” presumably as he interprets it. The whiff of McCarthyism is in the air for those of us who do not define ourselves as allegiant to Trump’s vision of America.

The inaugural speech and Trump’s first actions also send powerful messages regarding the struggle for human rights across the planet. The consequences of his dark vision will be dire. The record of the United States is patchy at best in terms of promoting human rights abroad, but it has played an important role in a number of areas, commencing with Eleanor Roosevelt’s work on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While its record in Latin America and the Middle East has been particularly deplorable, this country has supported civil society groups in a number of countries and other international initiatives that have promoted accountability for human rights violations. It has worked with other countries and the United Nations to advance the normative agenda that has enshrined human rights in international law and broadly supported the human rights movement in areas such as individual liberties and women’s rights. Mr. Trump will end these efforts in an obvious return to the old adage: “Governments can boil their own people in oil for all we care, as long as they support us.”

This abdication of American support for human rights will not only undermine those countries that respect human rights but will also embolden those who seek to undermine the United Nations and other institutions that have advocated for and protected those rights. The emerging Trump-Putin partnership will mean that victims of human rights abuses around the world will have nowhere to turn to, as avenues to redress, accountability and acknowledgement of the violations close down.

The question is, what can we do? What is our responsibility as human rights defenders, but also as citizens of the United States and the world at large?

I was in New York City on Saturday, participating in the Women’s March, and was heartened by the tremendous crowd and the energy to resist Trump’s dystopian agenda. This is an encouraging sign, which indicates that vast segments of American society do not support Trump’s agenda. But the concern has to be expressed that these marches may be like “Occupy Wall Street,” a burst of energy but with little organization to follow up. We will need to think harder and deeper about how to resist an agenda that would erode the gains that have been achieved.

While there is not a single “silver bullet” to take on what we will face ahead, we need to move past “conversations” and start organizing. It is hard to imagine — in this diverse and app-based world of today — that a single organization can take the lead in such a movement, like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (with lots of allies and competition, of course) did for the Civil Rights Movement. However, it is clear that a coalition of forces must emerge in American civil society to provide the backbone of resistance to the Trump agenda.

We cannot afford atomization along the lines of our specific causes, be they accountability for human rights violations, racial injustice, inequality, LGBTI rights, indigenous rights or other human rights causes we support. If we are to have a chance to stop Trump’s destructive agenda, we must unite and act as a movement as strongly against the Dakota Access Pipeline as against a registry for Muslims or systemic police violence against African-Americans. Our goals in protecting human rights in the United States must be as clearly defined as our actions must be coordinated.

There also must be a revitalization of the Democratic party, which should take a page or two from the Republican playbook and be a genuine party of opposition and (when needed) of obstruction. Building on the energy of a progressive agenda, as illustrated by Bernie Sanders’ campaign, needs to replace the Clinton approach of the 1990s that is responsible, in part, for the disaster of last November.

The time for action and resistance is now. I and the organization that I lead, the International Center for Transitional Justice, have over the years had a great deal of experience in addressing the abuses of regimes across the world that disregard human rights and commit abuses. Once rights and the institutions built to protect them are pushed to the side and the strong man reigns, the path to violations becomes real and the difficulties of re-establishing the rule of law become very steep indeed. The warning signs here in the United States are now laid bare. They should be a call to action for us all.

Go to Site

PILPG: War Crimes Prosecution Watch: Volume 11, Issue 23 – January 23, 2017

Case School of Law Logo

FREDERICK K. COX
INTERNATIONAL LAW CENTER

Founder/Advisor
Michael P. Scharf

War Crimes Prosecution Watch

Volume 11 – Issue 23
January 23, 2017

PILPG Logo

Editor-in-Chief
Kevin J. Vogel

Technical Editor-in-Chief
Jeradon Z. Mura

Managing Editors
Dustin Narcisse
Victoria Sarant

War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org and type “subscribe” in the subject line.

Opinions expressed in the articles herein represent the views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the War Crimes Prosecution Watch staff, the Case Western Reserve University School of Law or Public International Law & Policy Group.

Contents

CENTRAL AFRICA

Central African Republic

Sudan & South Sudan

Democratic Republic of the Congo

WEST AFRICA

Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast)

Lake Chad Region — Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon

Mali

EAST AFRICA

Uganda

Kenya

Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda)

Somalia

NORTH AFRICA

Libya

MIDDLE EAST AND ASIA

Iraq

Syria

Yemen

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal

War Crimes Investigations in Burma

Israel and Palestine

North Korea

TOPICS

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Terrorism

Piracy

Gender-Based Violence

Commentary and Perspectives

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: Atrocity Alert: The Gambia

Atrocity Alert is a weekly publication by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect highlighting and updating situations where populations are at risk of, or are enduring, mass atrocity crimes.

The Gambia

An ECOWAS-led military intervention appears imminent in The Gambia. Following the country’s 1 December election, which opposition leader Adama Barrow won, current President Yahya Jammeh’s 22-year rule is scheduled to come to an end at midnight tonight. Yesterday, 17 January, President Jammeh declared a state of emergency, making all demonstrations illegal and curtailing other civil liberties. Jammeh appears willing to use force to prevent the impending inauguration of President-elect Barrow.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has repeatedly called upon President Jammeh to accept his electoral defeat and step down. An ECOWAS mediation mission, including Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari and former President of Ghana John Dramani Mahama, met with President Jammeh in The Gambia on 13 January. The following day ECOWAS military leaders also met in Abuja, Nigeria. ECOWAS has a long established policy of opposing coups and unconstitutional changes of government in West Africa.

Following numerous failed mediation attempts, ECOWAS troops are now stationed on the Senegalese border, while a Nigerian warship is currently off the coast of The Gambia. The UN Security Council is also considering a resolution on the situation in The Gambia.

President Jammeh has ruled The Gambia since a military coup in 1994 and has a history of inciting ethnic division. In June 2016 President Jammeh threatened to eliminate the entire Mandinka ethnic group, whom he does not consider to be authentic Gambians. UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, condemned President Jammeh’s “public stigmatization, dehumanization and threats against the Mandinka,” arguing that they constituted possible incitement to commit mass atrocities. President Jammeh has also previously threatened to “slit the throats” of all gay men in The Gambia and some of his supporters have recently blamed political instability in the country on gays and their alleged foreign supporters. In his attempt to hold onto power, President Jammeh may try to foment these divisions and systematically target civilians whom he considers a threat to his rule.

Due to fears regarding current political instability, at least 26,000 people have fled The Gambia into Senegal as of 16 January, according to the regional office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

If President Jammeh does not stand down by midnight tonight, the UN Security Council and ECOWAS should work together to secure a peaceful transition in The Gambia and prevent any further incitement to violence on the basis of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or presumed political allegiance. If ECOWAS intervenes, all measures need to be taken to ensure the protection of civilians and respect for human rights.