June, 13 2011, 10:33am EDT
Kuwait: Stateless 'Bidun' Denied Rights
Fifty Years of Waiting, but Government Offers Only Handouts
KUWAIT CITY
Kuwait has not made good on its decades of promises to address citizenship claims for more than 106,000 stateless Bidun residents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 63-page report, "Prisoners of the Past: Kuwaiti Bidun and the Burden of Statelessness," describes how in Kuwait, one of the world's richest countries, the Bidun live under the radar of normal society, vulnerable and without protection. Many live in poverty. Kuwait considers the Bidun "illegal residents." The government has denied them essential documentation, including birth, marriage, and death certificates, as well as access to free government schools and legal employment opportunities.
"Like the rest of the Arab world, the Bidun have had enough and are demanding reforms the government should have made years ago," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The government responded to peaceful demonstrators with promises of reform, but it needs to go further and tackle their citizenship claims."
In February and March 2011 hundreds of Bidun gathered to protest the government's failure to act on their citizenship applications. In response, the government has promised some new benefits, including birth, marriage, and death certificates, free health care, and improved access to jobs. If implemented, these would be positive steps, Human Rights Watch said. But it would leave the root cause of their condition - their citizenship claims - unchanged.
Umm Walid, a 43-year-old Bidun widow, said that she had no paperwork establishing her relationship to her deceased husband. "[When] a Bidun dies, there is no death certificate, [so] there is no proof that I even had a husband," she said. "We don't have [an] identity." Basim A. told Human Rights Watch, "[My son] was born without a birth certificate, [and died] without a death certificate."
Statelessness has existed in Kuwait since independence in 1961. After an initial registration period ended, authorities shifted Bidun citizenship applications to a series of committees that have avoided resolving the claims while maintaining sole authority to determine Bidun access to civil documentation and social services. Kuwaiti law bans the courts from ruling on citizenship claims. Since the mid-1980s, the government has maintained that the vast majority of Bidun are "illegal residents" who have deliberately destroyed evidence of other nationality, while denying individualized reviews of their claims. Unregistered Bidun, whose citizenship applications the authorities have either closed or refused to register, are even more vulnerable than others, with restrictions on their freedom of movement and constant fear of deportation. International law bans the arbitrary deprivation of nationality and requires countries to consider applicants' "genuine and effective links" with a country when evaluating nationality claims, including the social, cultural, and economic ties they have established over time. The Kuwaiti government should create a timely and transparent mechanism to review Bidun citizenship claims that incorporates international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said. The process should take into account the Bidun's longstanding, historic ties to Kuwait, and should include an opportunity for judicial review.
As "illegal residents," the Bidun face obstacles to obtaining civil documentation, leaving them unable to get consistent social services or function as normal members of society. The Central System for Resolving Illegal Residents' Status, the "Bidun Committee," the latest administrative body tasked with addressing Bidun claims, must approve all official matters involving this group.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 70 people for the report, including 18 who identify themselves as stateless Bidun, as well as local human rights and civil society advocates, lawyers, and academics. Human Rights Watch also met with officials from the Central System to Resolve Illegal Residents' Affairs.
Bidun interviewed said that the committee has denied their applications for government documents, claiming to have evidence that they had other "true nationalities" - evidence that they have not been allowed to see or contest. They said the body has rejected applications for birth, marriage, and death certificates, leaving them with no way to prove legal relationships to family members.
International human rights law requires governments to provide certain civil documentation for all residents, whether legal or illegal, including a child's right to registration upon birth, and the right to marry and found a family. The Kuwaiti government should ensure the Bidun's right to civil documentation, including birth certificates, marriage registration, death certificates, and travel documents. "Denying Bidun basic identification documents on the basis of secret evidence that they have other nationality is as arbitrary as it is unfair," Whitson said. "The Kuwaiti government's policy to make Bidun invisible doesn't make the Bidun problem go away, but it does bring suffering and exclusion to vulnerable people." Bidun also face violations of their social and economic rights, including their rights to education, health, and work, Human Rights Watch said. The Kuwaiti government provides certain handouts, and on May 26 agreed to provide ration cards for food allowances through government-run cooperatives. But the government has not recognized enforceable legal rights and benefits for the Bidun, and continues to enforce discriminatory policies against them.
While some Bidun carry security IDs to allow them to get services available to the Bidun, unregistered Bidun do not even have these documents and fear leaving their homes because they risk arrest and deportation. The government excludes unregistered Bidun from the handouts it provides, including some of the new reforms promised this spring. Unregistered Bidun face significantly greater obstacles to accessing education, health care, and work opportunities.
Though Kuwait has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires governments to provide free universal and free primary education, most Bidun children cannot attend the free government schools for Kuwaiti children. Instead, with some tuition assistance, they go to inferior private schools that serve Bidun almost exclusively. Kuwaiti children receive free education through the university level.
Umm Abdullah, a 58-year-old Bidun woman, told Human Rights Watch that of her four grandchildren, two granddaughters did not go to school, and that while one grandson received tuition assistance, the other did not. Bidun who did go to school lamented a lack of higher educational opportunities and jobs, even if they did well in school.
"Our school was very bad," said Fatima A., a 24-year-old Bidun woman. "And [though] I received a 96 percent, afterward, I couldn't do anything."
As "illegal residents," the Bidun cannot legally hold most jobs. The government has carved out a very narrow pool of positions for which they can apply. Some Bidun said they had resorted to informal and undependable work, such as selling vegetables on the street, car repair, or tailoring. Those who have opened their own businesses have had to rely on citizen friends or relatives to register licenses and property in their names, as Bidun cannot own property or obtain business licenses.
"My father served in the Kuwaiti army 27 years," said Zahir, a 50-year-old Bidun, "[But now,] nobody in my family works."
Bidun interviewed also lacked affordable or accessible health care. As indigent patients, some could not afford medical care prescribed for them, while others lacked documentation they said hospitals and clinics required to treat them. Kuwait's government recently promised free health care to the Bidun. All Kuwaiti citizens get free health care at government clinics and hospitals.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens has stressed that "all persons should by virtue of their essential humanity enjoy all human rights," including rights to education and health care with only "exceptional distinctions," while the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Kuwait is a party, prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin or statelessness.
"Given the vast amount of resources at its disposal, it's shameful that any child in Kuwait should go without schooling, or that families should live from hand-to-mouth," Whitson said. "By confining the Bidun to different schools, marginal or illegal jobs, and separate lives, the government is engaging in segregation, an egregious type of discrimination." Background
During a citizenship drive leading up to Kuwait's independence, significant numbers of people living on the outskirts of Kuwait, particularly among nomadic Bedouin tribes, failed to complete application procedures. Some were illiterate and could not produce documents proving their claims under Kuwait's nationality law, while others simply did not understand the importance that citizenship would later acquire.
In the 1960s and 70s Kuwait gave Bidun the same access to social and public services as citizens, except for voting rights. But during the political instability of the 1980s, when the country experienced a series of terrorist attacks, policy towards the Bidun dramatically shifted, and the government removed their access to government schools, free health care, and certain government jobs. Government officials began asserting that the vast majority of the Bidun were nationals of neighboring countries who had destroyed their documents in hopes of claiming the benefits of Kuwaiti citizenship, and that they were "illegal residents."
Following the 1991 Iraqi invasion and the subsequent liberation, Bidun found themselves facing increasing hardship and suspicion. No longer considered part of Kuwaiti society during a time when suspicion of Iraqi infiltrators ran high, many lost their jobs in the country's army and police forces.
In November 2010 government officials promised a new initiative to resolve the situation within five years, and following Bidun protests in February and March they made further promises to grant all registered Bidun free health care, provide children with free schooling, and to increase their employment opportunities. However, none of these promises have yet become enforceable legal rights.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Right-Wingers Plot to Give Trump Control Over Federal Reserve If Reelected
"Under such an approach, the chair would regularly seek Trump's views on interest-rate policy and then negotiate with the committee to steer policy on the president's behalf," The Wall Street Journal reported.
Apr 26, 2024
Right-wing allies of former U.S. President Donald Trump are reportedly crafting a plan to give the executive branch control over Federal Reserve policy decisions, an effort that comes as the presumptive GOP nominee continues to signal his authoritarian intentions for a potential second term.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that former Trump administration officials and other supporters of the ex-president "have in recent months discussed a range of proposals, from incremental policy changes to a long-shot assertion that the president himself should play a role in setting interest rates."
"A small group of the president's allies—whose work is so secretive that even some prominent former Trump economic aides weren't aware of it—has produced a roughly 10-page document outlining a policy vision for the central bank," the Journal reported. "The group of Trump allies argues that he should be consulted on interest-rate decisions, and the draft document recommends subjecting Fed regulations to White House review and more forcefully using the Treasury Department as a check on the central bank. The group also contends that Trump, if he returns to the White House, would have the authority to oust Jerome Powell as Fed chair before his four-year term ends in 2026."
During his first four years in the White House, Trump repeatedly criticized Powell—whom the former president appointed in 2017—over the central bank's interest rate policy and insisted he had the authority to oust the Fed chair before the end of his term. The Fed is an independent body subject to limited congressional oversight.
"I have the right to do that," Trump said in 2019 of ousting Powell. "I'm not happy with his actions, I don't think he's done a good job."
The Fed, still under Powell's leadership, has since jacked up interest rates to their highest level in decades in an attempt to combat inflation—an approach that progressive lawmakers and economists have criticized as misguided, arguing that prices were elevated primarily by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and corporate profiteering and that hiking rates would harm workers. (Progressives have historically pushed for Fed reforms that would make the powerful central bank more accountable to the public.)
Late last year, Trump said interest rates were "too high" but did not say he would pressure the central bank to lower them, saying: "Depends where inflation is. But I would get inflation down."
More recently, Trump suggested the Fed's indication that rate cuts are coming in the near future as inflation cools is a political ploy to "help the Democrats."
"It looks to me like he's trying to lower interest rates for the sake of maybe getting people elected, I don't know," Trump said in a Fox Business appearance in February.
Economist Paul Krugman predicted in his New York Timescolumn earlier this year that "Trumpist attacks on the Fed for cutting interest rates are coming."
"What we don't know is how the Fed will react," Krugman wrote. "In a recent dialogue with me about the economy, my colleague Peter Coy suggested that the Fed may be inhibited from cutting rates because it'll fear accusations from Trump that it's trying to help Biden. I hope Fed officials understand that they'll be betraying their responsibilities if they let themselves be intimidated in this way."
"And I hope that forewarned is forearmed," he added. "MAGA attacks on the Fed are coming; they should be treated as the bad-faith bullying they are."
The Journal reported Thursday that "several people who have spoken with Trump about the Fed said he appears to want someone in charge of the institution who will, in effect, treat the president as an ex officio member of the central bank's rate-setting committee."
"Under such an approach, the chair would regularly seek Trump's views on interest-rate policy and then negotiate with the committee to steer policy on the president's behalf," the newspaper continued. "Some of the former president's advisers have discussed requiring that candidates for Fed chair privately agree to consult informally with Trump on the central bank's decisions... Others have made the case that Trump himself could sit on the Fed's board of governors on an acting basis, an option that several people close to the former president described as far-fetched."
According to earlier Journal reporting, Trump's team has discussed several possible replacements for Powell, including former White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett and Arthur Laffer, a former Reagan adviser and notorious tax-cut enthusiast.
Trump allies' plot to help the former president exert control over Fed policy if he's reelected in November provides further insight into the presumptive Republican nominee's likely approach to a second term.
During his 2024 campaign, Trump—who is facing 88 charges across four criminal cases—has vowed to be a dictator on "day one," wield federal authority to go after his political opponents, launch the "largest domestic deportation operation in American history," and use the U.S. military to crack down on protests.
"If a president is truly determined to make himself a dictator, the question at the end of the day is whether the military and other force-deploying agencies of the federal government are willing to go along," Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, toldThe Washington Post in a recent interview. "If they are, there's not much Congress or the courts could do about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular