September, 14 2010, 10:54am EDT
DR Congo: Strengthen Protection for Displaced People
Internally Displaced Should Not Be Forced to Return Home
AMSTERDAM
Both the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the
United Nations peacekeeping mission there should give greater emphasis
to the protection of the nearly two million people displaced from their
homes in the conflict-ridden eastern part of the country, Human Rights
Watch said in a report released today. The UN Refugee Agency and
international donors should ensure that assistance programs are not used
to press them to go home before they are confident it is safe, Human
Rights Watch said.
The 88-page report, "Always on the Run: The Vicious Cycle of Displacement in Eastern Congo,"
documents abuses against the displaced by all warring parties in all
phases of displacement - during the attacks that uproot them; after they
have been displaced and are living in the forests, with host families,
or in camps; and after they or the authorities decide it is time for
them to return home. The report is based on interviews with 146 people
displaced from their homes in eastern Congo, as well as government
officials, humanitarian workers, and journalists.
"Despite the government's stabilization and reconstruction efforts in
eastern Congo, the population remains at risk from continuing
violence," said Gerry Simpson, senior refugee researcher at Human Rights
Watch and author of the report. "The internally displaced are among the
most vulnerable people in the region, and they desperately need greater
protection and assistance."
The report documents how myriad armed groups and the Congolese armed
forces have displaced hundreds of thousands of people in North and South
Kivu - eastern Congo's most volatile provinces - often multiple times
and for many years. Combatants have forced civilians from their homes
and lands, looted their properties, and punished them for suspected
collaboration with enemy groups. These internally displaced persons
(IDPs) have fled killings, rape, burning, pillaging, and forced labor.
According to UN estimates, the conflict has left at least 1.8 million
civilians displaced -the fourth-largest internal displacement in the
world - 1.4 million of them in North and South Kivu, bordering Rwanda.
The situation remains fluid. While the UN estimates that 1 million
internally displaced returned to their homes in 2009, at least 1.2
million people were forced to flee their homes during three successive
military operations that began in January 2009. During the first three
months of 2010, at least 115,000 people fled their homes due to
continued military operations and danger in the Kivus.
The Vicious Cycle of Displacement
Abandoning possessions, homes, land, and livelihoods, large numbers
of civilians first seek refuge in the forest near their villages in the
hope of staying close to their fields and property. Many face further
abuses there, including attacks by armed groups, rape, and robbery or
are forced by the lack of shelter and hunger to seek refuge and help
elsewhere.
At least 80 percent of eastern Congo's displaced find relative safety
living with "host families," who themselves struggle to make ends
meet. These displaced people face economic hardship, hunger, and
disease, and the vast majority have little or no access to health care
and education. With time, the host families become overburdened by the
displaced, who are often then forced to move again.
Although many say they prefer to survive by cultivating land, their
limited or non-existent access to fields means that many rely on
humanitarian agencies. But for logistical or security reasons, these
agencies are often unable to reach them in the places where they have
taken refuge.
"Again and again, parents desperate to feed their children said that
the absence of aid meant that they had no choice but to risk life and
limb and return to places of grave danger," Simpson said. "They need aid
both to fend off hunger and to avoid losing their lives at the hands of
armed groups."
The Question of Return
Although military operations have continued throughout this year,
Congolese government officials have repeatedly said that the security
situation in eastern Congo has vastly improved and that it wants to see
the displaced return home.
The report describes the obstacles displaced people face in returning
to their homes: the general lack of security in villages away from main
roads; abuses and threats by combatants on all sides of the conflict;
accusations of collaborating with enemy groups; looting of harvests;
extortion by ill-disciplined combatants; and disputes over land title,
land occupation, and property destruction.
The report also documents how, at times, the authorities have let
political considerations take priority over the needs of the displaced
and have encouraged them to leave camps against their will. For example,
in September 2009, Congolese authorities pressured 60,000 people in
UN-run camps in and around Goma to return home.
Police and bandits raided and looted the camps as they were closing,
attacking those who were slow to pack up and leave. A number of the
displaced told Human Rights Watch they didn't even try to go home
because they knew it was still unsafe, while others tried but were
forced to disperse by armed groups. Neither the government nor UN
agencies adequately monitored what happened to those 60,000 people.
"UN agencies and donors need to provide sufficient resources for
emergency humanitarian assistance," Simpson said. "The displaced should
be encouraged to return home only if it is safe and under voluntary and
dignified conditions."
The Need for Protection
Congolese authorities have a poor track record in protecting
displaced people and other civilians, with Congolese army units often
abusing the population they are supposed to protect, Human Rights Watch
said. Congolese authorities rely on almost 20,000 UN peacekeepers (the
UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, MONUSCO) to help protect civilians under imminent threat of
physical violence and assist displaced civilians who want to return
home.
Human Rights Watch said that the UN mission has developed some
innovative ways to enhance civilian protection, including a civilian
protection strategy and Joint Protection Teams, who try to anticipate
and respond to civilians' protection needs. These initiatives have had
some positive impact, but the peacekeepers are spread across a vast and
difficult terrain with overstretched resources, and their ability to
protect civilians has also been limited. As a result, the challenge of
protecting eastern Congo's civilians remains immense.
Protecting civilians, including people who are internally displaced,
should remain the key consideration as the government develops
post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction policies, Human Rights
Watch said.
"The rebuilding of eastern Congo should not come at the expense of
protection for its most vulnerable citizens," Simpson said. "The UN and
donors should ensure that their rights to life and dignity remain
central to any reconstruction efforts."
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
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular