May, 08 2009, 09:00am EDT
South Africa: Put Rights at Center of Foreign Policy
Zuma Should Grasp Opportunity to Break With the Recent Past
JOHANNESBURG
South Africa's new government should make human rights a central pillar of its foreign policy agenda, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to President-elect Jacob Zuma.
Human Rights Watch expressed concern that in recent years - including during its two-year stint as a member of the United Nations Security Council - South Africa has chosen to side with some of the worst human rights abusers, including Iran, Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. While it justifiably criticized the human rights practices of the United States and Israel and sought reform of international institutions, Pretoria failed to take the moral high ground and build a broad north-south alliance around strengthening international law and human rights. As a result, it squandered its international reputation, which it had so effectively built up in the 1990s, as a champion of human rights and the rule of law.
"South Africans and their supporters all over the world who had such high hopes for this country's leadership on human rights felt betrayed by the previous government," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "This is a chance for Zuma to take the high road and restore credibility and balance to South Africa's foreign policy."
Human Rights Watch called attention to situations in three nations where South African leadership could lead to significant improvements and progress in human rights: Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Zimbabwe.
In Sudan, a number of interlinking issues continue to undermine human rights. The major elements are: the armed conflict, lack of security, and obstruction of humanitarian aid in Darfur; African Union and Arab League moves to help President Omar al-Bashir evade justice; and the threat of renewed north-south conflict between Khartoum and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A).
Those responsible for the worst crimes in Darfur know they will not face justice and the Sudanese government has used the International Criminal Court's (ICC) arrest warrant for al-Bashir as a pretext to expel international humanitarian organizations, unnecessarily endangering further the lives of millions of civilians in Darfur.
Human Rights Watch called on the new South African government to:
- Support the ICC's work in Sudan and the principles of international justice, and press other African countries to do the same; and
- Press Sudan to reverse its decision to expel humanitarian agencies, and reinstate the full scope of humanitarian assistance in Darfur.
In its letter to President-elect Zuma, Human Rights Watch also detailed how the new government could help end the rampant abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and help set the country firmly on a democratic footing. To its great credit, South Africa has contributed a substantial number of peacekeeping troops to the United Nations force in Congo. The UN force is involved in joint military operations with Congolese government forces against brutal Hutu militias like the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR).
But UN peacekeepers have so far been unsuccessful in restraining government soldiers from also committing abuses against civilians. To make matters worse, the deputy commander of the Congolese military force is reported to be Bosco Ntaganda, a former rebel commander who has been charged with war crimes by the ICC. Human Rights Watch said that South African forces should not be standing by while abuses are taking place or working with people like Ntaganda.
Human Rights Watch called on the new government to:
- Help the Congolese government establish a vetting mechanism to remove from the army and police individuals accused of serious human rights violations, and to ensure that they are brought to justice rather than promoted; and
- Press the Congolese authorities to punish abusive soldiers and their commanders and to bring abuses to a halt.
In Zimbabwe, despite the formation of a new power-sharing government, the crisis persists and human rights abuses continue. Police continue to intimidate and arrest activists, and supporters of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), the longtime governing party, continue their violent invasions of commercial farms. Police and prosecuting authorities who have remained under the control of ZANU-PF in the power-sharing government have continued politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents and have failed to investigate ongoing allegations of torture. Key state and judicial institutions remain partisan and unreformed.
The government is yet to initiate comprehensive legislative reforms and repeal repressive laws like the Public Order and Security Act, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as a litany of laws that restrict media operations.
Human Rights Watch called on the new South African government to:
- Monitor closely the progress of all parties to Zimbabwe's power-sharing agreement in carrying out all commitments they made as part of the Global Political Agreement, including respecting individual rights, passing human rights-centered legislative reforms, drafting a new constitution, and holding fresh elections that meet international standards of freedom and fairness; and
- Press Zimbabwe's inclusive government to commit to, and institute, genuine political change.
"The new government of President Zuma should establish early on that it is committed to playing a positive role in ending repression and abuses not only on the continent but in other parts of the world," Gagnon said. "Zimbabwe is an obvious place to start."
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
Top US Nitrogen Gas Producers Ban Use in Executions
"Drug manufacturers don't want their medicines diverted and misused in torturous executions and the makers of nitrogen gas share the same objection: They do not want their products to be used to kill," said one campaigner.
Mar 11, 2024
Three of the leading U.S. manufacturers of medical-grade nitrogen gas said this week that they will not allow their products to be used in executions, a move that came after Louisiana approved the controversial capital punishment method recently used to kill an Alabama prisoner who appeared to be in agony before he died.
Airgas—owned by the French company Air Liquide—along with Air Products, and Matheson Gas toldThe Guardian that they are banning the use of their nitrogen gas products in the previously untested execution method used to cause death by hypoxia, or deprivation of oxygen to vital tissues.
Veterinarians consider nitrogen gas unethical for euthanizing animals and United Nations human rights experts have asserted that the execution technique may violate international anti-torture law.
"Airgas has not, and will not, supply nitrogen or other inert gases to induce hypoxia for the purpose of human execution," the company said.
Matheson Gas told The Guardian that use of its products in executions is "not consistent with our company values," while Air Products told the U.K.-based newspaper that it has established "prohibited end uses for our products, which includes the use of any of our industrial gas products for the intentional killing of any person (including nitrogen hypoxia)."
Four states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—have approved nitrogen gas for use in executions. Last week, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed legislation passed by the GOP-controlled state Legislature expanding execution methods to include the electric chair and nitrogen hypoxia. This, despite the agonizing execution in January of 58-year-old Kenneth Smith, who was killed by the state of Alabama by nitrogen hypoxia on January 25 after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his last-ditch appeal.
Rev. Jeff Hood, a spiritual adviser to U.S. death row inmates, witnessed Smith's killing, which he described as "horrific and cruel." Hood and other witnesses said Smith convulsed violently for several minutes while he was strapped to a gurney and forced to breathe nitrogen gas through a mask. Even prison guards were taken by surprise as the gurney shook and Smith struggled for his life.
Alabama officials had claimed that nitrogen hypoxia is "perhaps the most humane method of execution ever devised."
States have sought alternative means of killing condemned prisoners—including nitrogen gas and firing squads—ever since the European Union banned the sale and export of lethal injection drugs in 2011.
Maya Foa, co-executive director of the anti-death penalty group Reprieve, told The Guardian that "drug manufacturers don't want their medicines diverted and misused in torturous executions and the makers of nitrogen gas share the same objection: They do not want their products to be used to kill."
"States which claim that the lethal injection or gas inhalation are 'humane' methods of execution are merely seeking to mask what it means for a state to forcibly put someone to death," Foa added. "The makers of these products see through the lie and naturally want nothing to do with it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Social Security Is on the Ballot,' Say Advocates as Trump Threatens Cuts
"Not on my watch," said President Joe Biden in response to his Republican predecessor's latest threats to the safety net program.
Mar 11, 2024
With U.S. President Joe Biden's proposed 2025 budget released by the White House Monday just after former President Donald Trump issued his latest threat to slash Social Security and other safety net programs, economic justice groups said the choice between the two 2024 candidates could not be clearer.
"Make no mistake: Social Security is on the ballot this November," said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works after Trump phoned in to CNBC's "Squawk Box" to say that "there is a lot you can do... in terms of cutting" so-called "entitlements" like the program for retirees as well as Medicaid and Medicare.
"And in terms of, also, the theft and the bad management of entitlements—tremendous bad management of entitlements—there's tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do," said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Q: We've got $33 trillion in debt, have you changed your view on how to handle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, something has to be done to bring down debt.
Trump: "There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting." [pivots to rambling, lies] pic.twitter.com/4lMvJ6mcVG
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) March 11, 2024
While Trump's answer was "largely gibberish," according to former National Economic Council Deputy Director Bharat Ramamurti, his "express support for cutting Social Security and Medicare" was made clear.
A spokesperson for Trump's campaign said his comments were about cutting "waste" in the programs, but the remarks followed the former president's attempts to cut Social Security in all of the budget proposals he released during his term.
"It is consistent with Trump's past calls to privatize Social Security and raise the retirement age, as well as his slandering it as a 'Ponzi scheme,'" said Altman. "It is also consistent with the House Republican FY2025 budget, which proposes creating a commission designed to slash Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors."
The Republicans' budget proposal, which the House Budget Committee advanced last week, includes a so-called "fiscal commission" that would be empowered to fast-track Social Security and Medicare cuts.
"The contrast is clear," said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). "Democrats want to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The other party wants to end the programs as we know them."
Before winning the 2016 election, Trump called to raise the retirement age to 70 and promised to rescind the payroll tax—the taxes working people pay to fund Social Security and Medicare. He has frequently said cutting the programs, which about 70 million people rely on for post-retirement financial security and healthcare, was necessary to maintain their long-term solvency.
Despite Republicans' frequent claims that Americans' earned benefit programs are "bankrupting the country," Social Security is currently fully solvent—able to pay out full benefits to all beneficiaries—through 2034, and even if Congress took no action to expand the program, would be able to cover 80% of benefits after 2034. Medicare is currently solvent through 2028.
On social media, Biden responded to Trump's plan for the programs with four words: "Not on my watch."
Altman noted that Biden's proposed budget included "a very different vision for Social Security's future," with the president releasing a plan Monday "for protecting and expanding Social Security—and paying for it by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share."
Under a second Biden term, the White House said, there would be no benefit cuts to Social Security, and wealthy Americans—who currently do not pay Social Security taxes on all of their income, such as capital gains—would be required to pay "their fair share" to ensure retirees can continue to benefit from the program.
The Biden budget would also extend the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund permanently "by modestly increasing the Medicare tax rate on incomes above $400,000, closing loopholes in existing Medicare taxes, and directing revenue from the Net Investment Income Tax into the HI Trust Fund as was originally intended."
"Current law lets certain wealthy business owners avoid Medicare taxes on some of the profits they get from passthrough businesses," said the White House. "The budget closes this loophole and raises Medicare tax rates on earned and unearned income from 3.8% to 5% for those with incomes over $400,000."
Advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness pointed out that with Trump's plan to extend his 2017 tax cuts—which disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy and made billionaires $2.2 trillion richer—$3.5 trillion would be added to federal government's deficit.
"If anyone tries to cut Social Security or Medicare or raise the retirement age, I will stop them," said Biden on Monday after the release of his budget proposal. "Working people built this country, and pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It's not fair."
Keep ReadingShow Less
State Department-Commissioned Report Warns A.I. Could Be an ‘Extinction-Level’ Threat
The report says the U.S. government must move "quickly and decisively" to address the threat of artificial intelligence.
Mar 11, 2024
A report released on Monday that was commissioned by the U.S. State Department warns that artificial intelligence could pose an "extinction-level threat."
"Given the growing risk to national security posed by rapidly expanding AI capabilities from weaponization and loss of control—and particularly, the fact that the ongoing proliferation of these capabilities serves to amplify both risks—there is a clear and urgent need for the U.S. government to intervene," the report states.
The report compares the development of AI to the development of nuclear weapons and claims it might "destabilize global security" if it's not properly regulated. The report says the U.S. government must move "quickly and decisively" to address the threat of AI.
🚨 A new report commissioned by the U.S. government has identified "urgent and growing" national security risks "reminiscent of the introduction of nuclear weapons" - including "extinction-level threat to the human species" - from the development of advanced AI & artificial… pic.twitter.com/SvLrdEzz9e
— Future of Life Institute (@FLI_org) March 11, 2024
"The three authors of the report worked on it for more than a year, speaking with more than 200 government employees, experts, and workers at frontier AI companies—like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic, and Meta—as part of their research," Timereports. "Accounts from some of those conversations paint a disturbing picture, suggesting that many AI safety workers inside cutting-edge labs are concerned about perverse incentives driving decision making by the executives who control their companies."
The report recommends that the U.S. create a new federal agency to regulate the companies developing new AI tools and limit the growth of AI. Experts say such a move does not seem likely.
“I think that this recommendation is extremely unlikely to be adopted by the United States government,” Greg Allen, director of the Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told Time.
AI is a rapidly developing, and experts have warned that many of the companies creating new AI tools are not acting responsibly. A report from earlier this month also noted how generative AI is increasing the spread of climate disinformation and using up valuable resources.
The U.S. was one of 18 countries that joined an agreement in November to keep AI systems "secure by design," but further action will be needed to accomplish that goal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular