April, 23 2009, 12:10pm EDT

EU: Use Trade Pact to Improve Rights in Turkmenistan
European Parliament Green Light to Interim Trade Agreement No Excuse for Turning Blind Eye to Repression
BRUSSELS
The European Union should press the Turkmen government to improve its abysmal human rights record before agreeing to enhanced relations with the country, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today. The imperative for resolute EU action has become all the more urgent in the wake of a European Parliament resolution adopted on April 22, 2009, granting approval for concluding an interim trade agreement "as a potential lever to strengthen the reform process in Turkmenistan."
The resolution represents a shift in the European Parliament's position, which had previously blocked the agreement over human rights concerns, setting a number of specific benchmarks the Turkmen government would have to meet before the agreement could go ahead.
"Yesterday's vote backtracks from the parliament's earlier principled stance, giving up precious leverage to press for justice for the victims of abuse in one of the world's most repressive countries," said Maria Lisitsyna, Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. "But it does not take away the obligation of the Council and Commission to insist on real improvements from Ashgabad - if anything, it only further raises the stakes for them to do so."
The European Commission and a majority of EU member states have long advocated proceeding with the agreement despite the appalling state of human rights in Turkmenistan, even arguing that it would place the EU in a better position to affect positive change in the country.
The European Parliament resolution makes clear that it remains deeply concerned about the state of human rights in Turkmenistan. It "deplores" the situation as "still unsatisfactory" and urges a number of human rights reforms, including the unconditional release of all political prisoners, removal of all obstacles to free travel and to free access for independent monitors, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, and improvements in civil liberties, including for NGOs.
The human rights situation in Turkmenistan remains abysmal and, as evidenced by a recent review of its human rights record by the UN Human Rights Council, the government continues to resist genuine human rights reform. Perhaps most tellingly, it rejected a number of key recommendations made by UN member states during the review, including steps that would require nothing but political will to carry out, such as freeing political prisoners and lifting arbitrary travel bans on activists and relatives of opposition members. The Turkmen government continues to threaten those who raise even the smallest questions about its policies. Independent civil society activists and journalists cannot work freely in the country, which remains closed to independent human rights monitors.
"It's crucial that Ashgabad is left in no doubt about the EU's resolve to see meaningful human rights reform in Turkmenistan," said Nicolas Beger, director of Amnesty International's EU Office. "Those suffering persecution in the country should be able to count on a principled EU support for them."
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also objected to an argument invoked during the debate by the Czech minister of foreign affairs, which holds the current EU presidency, that the EU sanctions on Uzbekistan were an example of EU resolve in the face of serious human rights abuses
"Uzbekistan is a textbook case of failed EU policy on human rights," said Lisitsyna. "The Czech foreign minister's use of Uzbekistan as an example should have been a warning signal to the parliamentarians, emboldening them to stand firm on their reform demands."
In its effort to win over the European Parliament, the commission promised during the debate preceding the vote to "seriously consider" the parliament's opinion in deciding whether to suspend the agreement if it deemed Turkmenistan were violating the agreement's human rights clause.
In its resolution, the parliament stressed that the trade agreement must not be seen as a "blank cheque for Turkmenistan." It called for "strict monitoring and regular reviews of developments in key areas," and for the agreement to be suspended "if there is evidence that the conditions are not being met," requesting "regular updates on the monitoring by the Commission and the Council."
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said the commission's promise to take the parliament's calls for suspension seriously was not credible in the absence of a serious effort to press for concrete reforms in Turkmenistan. The commission and the council instead appear to have focused all their efforts on securing the European Parliament's approval for the agreement despite Turkmenistan's flouting the criteria it had set.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called on the EU to articulate urgently the specific human rights improvements it expects from the Turkmen government in exchange for enhanced relations, and to engage proactively in the weeks and months to come to help secure their fulfillment. These steps include:
- To free immediately and unconditionally all those imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, including human rights activists Annakurban Amanklychev and Sapardurdy Khajiev;
- To free the longest-serving political prisoner, Mukhametkuli Aymuradov;
- To start a nationwide, transparent review of all cases of political imprisonment over the past years to establish their real number and ensure that victims of abuse are provided with justice; To lift informal travel bans on activists and relatives of opposition members, and dismantle the system that allows the government to interfere with residents' ability to leave and return to Turkmenistan and restrict their freedom of movement within the country;
- To allow activists, civic groups, and journalists to operate freely and without fear of persecution;
- To ensure access to the country, including to places of detention, for independent human rights monitors such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular