SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Insurgent attacks on candidates and poor government security protection risk severely compromising Afghanistan's September 18, 2010 parliamentary election, Human Rights Watch said today. Candidates - as well as their staff members and election officials - face assassinations, kidnappings, and intimidation by insurgents as well as by rival candidates. Women candidates are facing the highest level of intimidation.
This is the second parliamentary election since the fall of the Taliban. The first was in 2005. The August 2009 presidential and provincial elections were held amid widespread violence, poor security, and allegations of serious corruption. Candidates, members of parliament, and election officials and monitors have expressed concerns to Human Rights Watch that security problems and corruption may have worsened since then and that the electoral process has not been reformed.
"Taliban attacks and the broad lack of confidence in the Afghan government to conduct a secure election threatens its validity," said Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher at Human Right Watch. "Insurgent violence, particularly against women candidates, was inevitable, but the government's weak response was not."
The Taliban have claimed responsibility for killing three parliamentary candidates during the campaign period. On July 23 in Khost, Sayedullah Sayed, a candidate and religious scholar, was killed and 20 others were wounded when the mosque in which he was speaking was bombed. On July 24, the Taliban abducted Najibullah Gulisanti, candidate for Ghazni province, and killed him two weeks later after Taliban demands for a prisoner exchange were rejected. On August 29, gunmen killed another candidate, Haji Abdul Manan Noorzai, while he was walking to a mosque in Herat. While some candidates have complained to Human Rights Watch about the government's lack of provisions for protecting candidates, others have not requested help or turned it down, citing a lack of confidence in the Afghan security forces.
The Taliban and other insurgent groups have also killed and threatened campaign supporters and voters. On July 14 in Logar province, two Taliban insurgents on a motorbike shot dead a shopkeeper who had displayed a poster for a parliamentary candidate in his shop. News reports said that so-called "night letters" were later distributed warning villagers that they would face the same fate if they did as the shopkeeper had done.
In Niazai, Logar province, on July 16, the Taliban killed two brothers who supported a local candidate. Afghan election monitors reported that in Darnota district, Nangarhar province, Taliban have made house visits warning that they will cut off the fingers of people found with voter registration cards.
In early September, a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, told reporters that, "Everyone affiliated with the election is our target - candidates, security forces, campaigners, election workers, voters are all our targets." Under the laws of war, which are applicable in Afghanistan, deliberate attacks on civilians, including government officials not directly taking part in the hostilities, are prohibited. Those ordering or conducting such attacks are responsible for war crimes.
"Attacks on candidates and voters are war crimes," Reid said. "It is sadly telling that the Taliban are willing to kill those who engage in this simple act of personal freedom."
Women candidates face escalating threats from both insurgents and rival candidates. In Herat on August 26, 10 people working for a woman running for parliament, Fauwzia Gilani, were abducted. Five were soon released. The Taliban initially denied responsibility, but later claimed that they had abducted five men. On August 29, five bodies with multiple gunshot wounds were discovered close to the abduction site.
Gilani told Human Rights Watch that she had received threatening phone calls prior to the abductions telling her to withdraw her candidacy, as well as messages after the abductions that if she withdrew her candidacy, her staff would be released. A local security official told Human Rights Watch that it is possible the abduction and killings were carried out by or for rival candidates.
In July, Mawlawi Shahzada, a member of parliament and candidate in the eastern province of Kunar, called a female candidate, Wagma Safi, an "infidel." Shahzada made the dangerous charge to his supporters gathered in Chawki district and said that anyone who votes for Safi would be an infidel. Safi told Human Rights Watch that she was concerned because such categorizations make individuals vulnerable to reprisal by insurgents or even members of their communities.
She filed a complaint with the Electoral Complaints Commission, which has a wide range of sanctions at its disposal, including disqualification of candidates, annulment of results, and referral to relevant criminal authorities for investigation. The Commission fined Shahzada 10,000 Afghanis (just over US$200). Safi said the fine was unlikely to deter further threatening behavior.
A female candidate from the central region who did not want her name or province made public told Human Rights Watch that she had received death threats from two rival candidates and that one of her campaigners had been severely wounded in an assault and told not to campaign again in the area.
In one northern province, letters have been distributed accusing a woman running for a parliamentary seat of being "un-Islamic" and a "prostitute." The letter also says a rival candidate has distributed videos proving the allegations. Questioning the religious faith and sexual propriety of candidates in this way puts candidates at risk and is particularly dangerous for women, Human Rights Watch said.
Under the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law, "[a]busing, humiliating, intimidating," or "harassment or persecution" of women are deemed as "violence against women." In cases where harassment results from the misuse of status or position, perpetrators can be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months.
The Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) said that the majority of threats against individual candidates reported to them were against women, including at least 40 incidents of threatening letters or phone calls in 10 provinces. Many of these incidents include threats of violence if the woman does not withdraw her candidacy.
The government has promised to make security personnel available for women running for parliament. But less than two weeks before the election, Human Rights Watch interviews with a number of election monitors, candidates, and women's rights activists suggest that the most women candidates have still not been provided with bodyguards, security advice, or transport security, even if they requested protection. Security was similarly inadequate during the 2009 elections. The Afghan government should rapidly address the security threats to women candidates, Human Rights Watch said.
"It is astonishing, given the threats and attacks, that the government continues to respond so inadequately to the security needs of women running for parliamentary seats," Reid said.
Election authorities have legitimate concerns about the possibility that suicide bombers will wear burqas in an attempt to breach security at polling places, Human Rights Watch said. There have been weeks of discussion among government departments about who has responsibility for ensuring that women will be stationed at the polls to carry out body checks, mirroring the failures in preparation for the 2009 presidential election. Consequently less than two weeks before the election, recruitment of female security staff for these jobs has barely begun, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch has learned of serious allegations of government interference in campaigns in several provinces. One independent candidate said that several cabinet ministers have offered logistical support to "pro-government" candidates. Officials from the Free and Fair Election Foundation and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission told Human Rights Watch of a number of cases in which provincial governors, security chiefs, and senior civil servants have been accused of using government resources to support candidates, sometimes in an intimidating manner. There are also numerous allegations that fraudulent voter registration cards and ballot papers have been produced and traded.
The Interior Ministry and Office of the Attorney General should promptly and transparently respond to threats and attacks against candidates, campaign staff, election monitors, officials, and voters with serious and credible investigations and hold those responsible to account, Human Rights Watch said. Government officials should not automatically blame attacks on the Taliban and other insurgent groups - which commit most, but not all, campaign-related violence - as this allows rival candidates to carry out attacks and threats with impunity, Human Rights Watch said.
The government should take seriously attacks against women candidates, including making the availability of protection widely known, even if some candidates choose not to use it.
The Electoral Complaints Commission should also be prepared to use its strongest sanctions, including disqualification, when there is evidence of serious crimes by candidates, such as statements that put other candidates' lives at risk. The commission should refer instances involving criminal offenses to the Office of the Attorney General.
"In this tense political environment, these elections could have wide-reaching ramifications for Afghanistan's future stability," Reid said. "The government will have to do far more to persuade the Afghan people that it can - and will - guarantee the security and independence of these elections."
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.
"We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction," one frontline advocate said.
A coalition of more than 250 climate, environmental, and frontline community organizations on Monday urged U.S. President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to reject all requests for approval to export liquefied natural gas to non-fair trade agreement countries.
The demand came in the form of a letter following a recent ruling by Trump-appointed District Judge James D. Cain Jr. to lift a pause that Biden's Department of Energy had placed on new LNG export approvals while it updates the criteria it uses to determine whether these exports are in the public interest. It also comes a week after the DOE signed off on the export of LNG from an offshore New Fortress Energy plant near Altamira, Mexico.
"After the hottest summer on record, on track to be the hottest year, it's clear that expanding climate-heating gas exports is not in the public interest," Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. "There's no reason on Earth to approve more LNG exports that lock in decades of damage to the climate, human communities, and imperiled species like Rice's whales. The Department of Energy must reject every single one."
"With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety."
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the many signatories of Monday's letter, backed by dozens of large national groups as well as scores of smaller, more local organizations. Other groups include Earthworks, Food and Water Watch, Oil Change International, the Sunrise Movement, Public Citizen, several branches of 350.org and Extinction Rebellion, Port Arthur Community Action Network, and the Vessel Project of Louisiana.
In the letter, the groups applauded the administration for instituting the pause on approvals in the first place and for acknowledging that the data it used to determine whether exports were in the public interest was "outdated and insufficient."
Since the court ruling leaves the department without a deadline for updating its data, the groups urged the DOE "to continue seeking the best available information on the impact of LNG exports on the public, the environment, and economy."
"When the department completes its analyses, the weight of evidence will make it clear that new LNG exports are not in the public interest and that all pending applications to export LNG must be rejected," the groups wrote.
With the world "on the verge" of exceeding the 1.5°C limit enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement, the coalition warned against new infrastructure and export policies that will only exacerbate the global emissions crisis at a critical moment in history.
"The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next year, and then steeply decline, for our planet to have the best chance of avoiding this fate," the letter reads. "The only way world leaders can avoid this moral and political failure is to work together to end fossil fuel production."
This goal has been hampered by the record rise in U.S. gas production facilitated by the fracking boom. Whereas global gas production had been predicted to be on the wane, it is now expanding instead. At the same time, new research has shown that, due to methane leaks, gas is not a "bridge fuel" to cleaner energy but in fact just as detrimental to the climate as coal.
Another major concern raised by LNG opponents is the local pollution generated by export facilities. Many of these new facilities are located in, under construction in, or slated for the Gulf South, which is already overburdened by toxic emissions from oil, gas, and petrochemical production.
"As a mom living in a community surrounded by industry, I feel the weight of every decision made about our environment," Vessel Project founder and director Roishetta Ozane said in a statement. "With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety. The Department of Energy has the power to reject these LNG export permits, and it's crucial they do so. We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction."
The letter suggests the broad environmental movement, both at the local level and nationally, is united behind the demand to halt the LNG buildout as the groups applauded Biden's efforts to curb exports thus far but also asked him to go further.
"We initially urged you to pause approvals of LNG exports," they wrote to Biden and Granholm, "we fiercely celebrated and defended your decision to do so in January, and now we write to let you know we continue to stand behind you as we insist that you take the next step of stopping new LNG exports."
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions provides a vital framework for ending the immediate and long-term harm and suffering caused by these abhorrent weapons," said one of the treaty's architects.
The overwhelming majority of cluster bomb casualties last year were civilians, with children making up nearly half of those killed or maimed by remnants of the internationally banned munitions, a report published Monday revealed.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) published its annual Cluster Munition Monitor report, which "details the policy and practice of all countries with respect to the international treaty that prohibits cluster munitions and requires destruction of stockpiles, clearance of areas contaminated by cluster munition remnants, and victim assistance."
That treaty, the landmark Convention on Cluster Munitions, has been ratified by 112 nations. However, numerous countries that are not parties to the agreement—including Myanmar, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, and the United States—continued to use or sell cluster bombs.
"Cluster munitions can be fired from the ground by artillery, rockets, missiles, or mortars, or dropped by aircraft," HRW explained. "They typically open in the air, dispersing multiple submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. Many submunitions fail to explode on initial impact, leaving unexploded duds that can indiscriminately injure and kill like landmines for years, until they are found and destroyed."
The results have been devastating. According to the report, 93% of cluster munition casualties reported by the monitor last year were civilians, while children made up 47% of those killed or wounded by cluster bomb remnants. Children are particularly vulnerable to unexploded cluster bomblets, which are often mistaken for toys.
According to the report, the following countries suffered more than 1,000 cluster bomb casualties in 2023: Laos (7,810), Syria (4,445), Iraq (3,201), Vietnam (2,135), and Ukraine (1,213).
HRW noted that "Russia has used stocks of old cluster munitions and newly developed models in Ukraine since 2022" and that "between July 2023 and April 2024, U.S. President Joe Biden approved five transfers to Ukraine of U.S. cluster munitions delivered by 155mm artillery projectiles and by ballistic missiles."
Meanwhile, unexploded cluster munitions dropped by the United States during the Vietnam War are still killing and maiming people, mostly children. In Laos, where the U.S. dropped more bombs than all sides in World War II combined, as many as 270 million cluster munitions were sprinkled over the country. Unexploded bomblets have killed an estimated 20,000 Laotians since the end of the war. It is believed that less than 1% of unexploded cluster munitions have been cleared in Laos.
The report highlighted some promising developments:
In December 2023, the convention reached a major milestone when Peru completed the destruction of its stockpiled cluster munitions, as it was the last state party with declared stocks to complete this obligation. Bulgaria, Slovakia, and South Africa announced the completion of the destruction of their respective cluster munition stocks in September 2023. These developments mean that member countries have collectively now destroyed 100% of their declared cluster munition stocks, destroying 1.49 million cluster munitions and 179 million submunitions.
However, there were also setbacks, such as legislation in Lithuania approving the Baltic nation's withdrawal from the cluster bomb treaty.
"Lithuania's ill-considered move to leave the Convention on Cluster Munitions stains its otherwise excellent reputation on humanitarian disarmament and ignores the risks of civilian harm," said HRW deputy crisis, conflict, and arms director Mary Wareham, who edited the new report. "It's not too late for Lithuania to heed calls to stop its planned withdrawal."
Speaking more broadly of the new report, Wareham—a joint recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines—said that "the Convention on Cluster Munitions provides a vital framework for ending the immediate and long-term harm and suffering caused by these abhorrent weapons."
"All countries should join and adhere to the convention if they are serious about protecting civilians from these weapons in the face of rising conflict," Wareham added.
"The international community has seemingly forgotten about Sudan, and is paying little heed to the conflict tearing it apart."
The head of the World Health Organization on Sunday warned of a devastating set of crises in war-torn Sudan and called for a stronger international response.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, a United Nations agency, delivered remarks from the city of Port Sudan following visits to health facilities in the country, which is locked in civil war and faces the prospect of a large-scale famine.
"I was shaken by the state of many of the tiny, wasted children," Ghebreyesus said.
"The scale of the emergency is shocking, as is the insufficient action being taken to curtail the conflict, and respond to the suffering it is causing," he added.
Ghebreyesus said he'd come to Sudan to draw attention to the dire situation there.
"The international community has seemingly forgotten about Sudan, and is paying little heed to the conflict tearing it apart, with repercussions in the region," he said.
#Sudan’s health system is on the verge of collapse after 16 months of war, with over 25M people in dire need of aid. “The scale of the emergency is shocking,” warns WHO chief @DrTedros. The world must wake up and act now to prevent further catastrophe.https://t.co/uuebggGhMG
— Africa Renewal, UN (@africarenewal) September 9, 2024
The two main parties in the civil war are the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the country's official military, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group. The two groups shared power for two years before the civil war erupted in April 2023.
The war's death toll is above 20,000, and that's an underestimate, Ghebreyesus said. Both sides have been accused of atrocities and of obstructing international aid. Parts of Sudan are facing famine and others are at risk of it; overall, 25.6 million Sudanese are expected to face high levels of food insecurity, Ghebreyesus warned.
A report issued last week by U.N. agencies and partner groups found that as of August, 8.5 million Sudanese faced "Emergency" conditions of food insecurity, the second-highest level, while 750,000 faced "Catastrophe/Famine," the highest level.
Last week, three international humanitarian groups warned that Sudan faced a hunger crisis of "historic proportions."
Dire warnings have been issued for many months but the international community has been slow to act. At a conference in Paris in April, rich countries did pledge $2.1 billion in support for Sudan, a bit less than the $2.7 billion the U.N. had sought; in any case, only $1.1 billion has actually been received in Sudan, as of the end of August.
Sudan faces the world's worst displacement crisis, with more than 10 million people having been forced to move within the country, and 2 million having left its borders, according to data cited by Ghebreyesus.
Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian public health official who's led the WHO since 2017, said he felt a close affinity with Sudan—it's "like my home," he said—and was deeply saddened by the situation there. He described the following "perfect storm of crises":
One of the most conflict-stricken areas of the country is Darfur, which became a cause célèbre during a war in the 2000s but hasn't received the same level of international attention this time.