The Bear’s Embrace: Russia and Kyrgyzstan

Katherine Crofts-Gibbons

Kyrgyzstan doesn’t get a lot of space in the press, but for anyone interested in Russia’s place in the world, it deserves attention. Kyrgyzstan’s entry into the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) signals Russia’s politico-economic power in the region. Two pieces of proposed legislation point to a deeper, normative dimension of Russian influence. 

On 21st May, after many missed deadlines, Kyrgyzstan joined the EEU, reflecting a shift away from America and towards Russia. The EEU is widely seen as an attempt by Putin to craft an alternative to the EU and reassert Russian power in the former Soviet Union.  The length of negotiations, and alleged foot dragging by Kyrgyz lawmakers may indicate that Kyrgyzstan has been unwillingly pulled into Russia’s arms. There is a case to be made that, as former Prime Minister Djoomart Otorbaev told Eurasianet, "there is no alternative" for Kyrgyzstan. Russia is its biggest export market, and increasingly tight immigration controls have made life difficult for the 1.5 million Kyrgyz living in Russia. 

However, there is, arguably, a deeper dimension to Russia’s influence, which suggests that Kyrgyzstan is not such an unwilling partner. 

Two pieces of legislation directly modelled on Russian examples are currently progressing through the legislative system. A "foreign agents" law passed its first reading on 4th June, 83 to 23, and is expected to come into law after elections in October. Following the example of Russia’s 2012 bill, the law would require foreign funded NGOs which engage in "political activities" to register as foreign agents. It would make establishing an NGO with aims to "incite citizens to refuse to fulfil their civic duties or commit other unlawful acts" punishable by 3 years imprisonment.

Nurkamil Madaliev, a cosponsor of the bill, has justified it as protecting Kyrgyzstan from Islamic extremism funded by Gulf Arabs, and, echoing Russian rhetoric, Western-funded organisations’ attempts to educate Kyrgyz youths about gay rights. One of the laws leading supporters, Tursunbai Bakir uulu, argues that the law will protect Kyrgyzstan from foreign "sabotage".

The second piece of legislation is a harsher version of Russia’s 2013 "gay propaganda" law. On the 24th June, it passed its second reading, 90 to 2. Under the legislation, anyone who creates "a positive attitude toward non-traditional sexual relations" could face up to a years imprisonment. Activists fear this could make publicly coming out a criminal act. The anti-gay agenda is widely linked to anti-western sentiments, as demonstrated by a protest outside the American Embassy in 2014 led by the nationalist youth-group Kalys, which conflated western support for LGBT rights with support for democracy activists in Ukraine.

There are two readings of the situation. It is possible that Russia is putting pressure on Kyrgyzstan to follow its path. There are rumours that Moscow has pressured lawmakers to support the laws, but solid evidence is scarce.

The second perspective is perhaps more worrying. Kyrgyzstan’s politicians do not need Russian pressure to be homophobic or suspicious of the West. Homophobia has long been linked to debates over nationality, which have come to the fore since communal violence between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks in 2010. Homosexuality is framed as a Western perversion. From this perspective, LGBT rights necessarily involve the imposition of foreign norms, and so must be resisted to protect national identity. 

Fears of Western influence have been stoked by claims that America is using NGOs to foment a Ukraine-style uprising. In a country that has experienced two revolutions in the last ten years, avoiding a third is high on the agenda. Kremlin-backed interpretations of the Ukraine crisis play a part, but are not the whole story. The view that Western influence lay behind the Tulip Revolution is not exclusive to Moscow, and the Kyrgyz political establishment has become increasingly suspicious of the West since the 2010 violence which, it is claimed, Western governments unfairly blamed on ethnic Kyrgyz.

So, although modelled on Russian examples, the ‘foreign agents’ and ‘gay propaganda’ laws are, to an extent, the result of home-grown dynamics, which points to the second dimension of Russian influence. Russia exercises active political and economic pressure, but it also provides a precedent and an alternative international "camp", making it easier for Kyrgyzstan to follow an illiberal path of its own choosing. Through the EEU, Russia is presenting a politico-economic alternative to Western integration - but it is also offering an alternative normative framework and normalising an illiberal political trajectory.  This calls into question established international human rights norms and provides a powerful ally for states that would question them. 

China's New Crackdown on Human Rights Law

WILL YELDHAM, WRITING FOR THE ORGANISATION FOR WORLD PEACE

On the night of 9th July, Wang Yu, a Fengrui lawyer, frantically sent her friends a text message saying that the internet connection and electricity had been cut off at her home and that people were trying to break in. Her disappearance early next morning signalled the beginning of a nationwide crackdown in the latest example of China’s human rights violations. Ms. Wang’s clients include practitioners of the religious group Falun Gong, who have been systematically persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party since July 1999, when the CCP launched an initiative to eradicate the practice.

Ms. Wang, whose whereabouts remain unknown, gained notoriety for becoming the first female Chinese human rights lawyer and defending Uighur economist Ilham Tothi, who is now serving a life sentence on separatism charges, and high-profile rights activist Cao Shunli, who died in police custody. Since Ms. Wang’s arrest over 100 human rights lawyers and activists have been detained or questioned. According to the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, many of those detained had signed a public letter calling for Ms. Wang’s release. Ms. Wang worked for Beijing Fengrui Law Firm which has subsequently been labelled as a “criminal platform” by state-backed media. Four lawyers from the firm, as well as an assistant and a lawyer’s husband, have been "criminally detained" for "seriously violating the law", the article said without specifying any charges.

Feng Zhenghu, a veteran human rights activist based in Shanghai, was one of those questioned by the authorities. He told CNN “the government asked us not to poke our nose into this business, to ignore the missing lawyers”. Feng also hinted at the cause of the crackdown stating the authorities “wanted us to know that they don’t want us to post or repost anything on this matter on the Internet”, showing the Chinese authorities’ fear of public mobilisation and damage to public opinion. With social protests and strikes on the rise and uncertain economic waters ahead, this crackdown sets a worrying precedent.

Furthermore, China unveiled a new “National Security Law” earlier this year which was widely viewed as giving authorities sweeping new powers to suppress human rights by defining ‘national security’ in broad and vague terms. The U.S. State Department released a statement on Monday expressing deep concern over the detentions and pointing out that the new law’s being used as “a legal façade to commit human rights abuses”. It’s nothing new for the U.S and China to trade human rights allegations, such as the lengthy report announced last month by the official Xinhua news agency drawing attention to “grim problems of racial discrimination” and the use of “cruel tortures indiscriminately” within the United States. Nevertheless, in this instance criticism has been widespread with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both condemning China’s actions.

According to the Ministry of Public Security, the official charge against the lawyers is “disrupting public order and seeking profits by illegally hiring protesters and swaying court decisions in the name of defending justice and public interests”. There are two clear problems with this. Firstly, and most obviously, the widespread outrage and protest is not hired but very real and simply goes to show that the increasingly desperate security measures being enacted are in fact having the inverse effect and stoking public anger. Secondly, it seems likely that these arrests were made to deter foreign “meddling” in China’s internal affairs. Guancha.cn, a state-backed Shanghai-based news site, cited links between the firm and U.S. Representative Chris Smith, the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees global human rights. Smith issued a statement confirming that he had indeed met with some of the lawyers. Thus, the aim of China’s crackdown is twofold, to suppress protest within the country and to deter foreign governments and NGOs from attempting to gather information on human rights transgressions. Just as the internal suppression is in fact fuelling the fire, the international community must not let China’s actions deter them from probing deeper into the ramifications of this “New Law”.

Find more from the OWP on their website and on Facebook.

The 29th Session of the Human Rights Council: Round-Up

Amelia Cooper

The 29th Session of the Human Rights Council closed last week, following three weeks of discussions that have culminated in the adoption of twenty-five resolutions with varying degrees of probity. In addition, six new Special Procedures mandate holders were appointed to address issues including, inter alia, the right to privacy, violence against women (including its causes and consequences), and the human rights of people with albinism. 

It is near impossible to provide a brief and cohesive summary of the Council’s session, due to the breadth of its agenda; however, there is an excellent report by the Universal Rights Group and a collection of detailed updates by FIDH for those seeking a more detailed analysis. Some outcomes are particularly notable in opening new fields for greater scrutiny (though that is not to say that they are more important than other resolutions adopted), such as: 

• The passage of a resolution focused on the protection of migrants, including those in transit;
• The passage of a resolution focused on the persecution of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar;
• The passage of a landmark resolution condemning and seeking to combat child, early and forced marriage, the first of its kind; 
• The adoption of a resolution focused on ensuring accountability for the violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, following the release of a report by the independent Commission of Inquiry into the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. The USA has received condemnation from states and CSOs alike for being the only member state to vote against this resolution; 
• The renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea, which will facilitate further fact-finding into and human rights monitoring of a deeply troubled state; and 
• The creation of a Commission of Inquiry into human rights violations committed in South Sudan. 

What merits specific and focused discussion, however, is the presence of what FIDH President Karim Lahidji referred to as a ‘full-fledged offensive’ by a coalition of conservative states seeking to ‘deny the universality of human rights’. Headed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Russia, this group of States has become increasingly active in attempting to curtail and recharacterise human rights with subjective concepts such as ‘defamation’ and ‘traditional values’. 

This session, debates over three resolutions were the epicentres of attacks on universality, pertaining to violence against women, freedom of expression and the protection of the family. Amendments proposed by a number of states challenged the very meaning of equal human rights for all and threatened the protection afforded to individuals regardless of their sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. 

With regard to the resolution on violence against women, Egypt, Russia and a number of Gulf states submitted amendments to withdraw condemnation of marital rape and intimate partner violence. Though these amendments were fortunately voted down, the rights of the individual within a family or domestic context were threatened by the renewal of the resolution on the protection of the family. 

Despite its seemingly innocuous – and almost quaint – sounding title, the resolution shrouds a pernicious agenda that refuses, first, to recognise that the family may exist in diverse forms, including having same sex parents or child-headed families (indeed, proposed amendments to include such a fact were blocked with the invocation of the Procedural No Action motion, a device used to block substantive debate). Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that human rights violations can occur within a family context (as illustrated in the resolution on violence against women), and represents a shift away from individual rights. It is a resolution that stands in stark contrast to the ideals that the Human Rights Council was formed upon: rather than promoting equality and non-discrimination, it enshrines their antithesis. 

The concept of ‘defamation’ reared its ugly head once again during negotiations on the proposed resolution to protect artistic expression, which has since been abandoned. As previously discussed here, moving away from the defamation agenda with the passage of Resolution 16/18 was widely celebrated; I sincerely hope that it does not gain traction in coming sessions. 

As ever, therefore, a mixed bag of results from the Council: some successes which deserve to be celebrated, but also a number of failures that require public and widespread condemnation. It is clear that we cannot be complacent: if anything, public vigilance is required more than ever to ensure that the founding principles of the Council continue to provide the basis of its work, and that the attempts to undermine universal standards are soundly rebuffed. The Council will meet again in September – it is incumbent upon the international community to reaffirm the principle of human rights for all, and on us to hold the Council and our governments to account for doing so. 

Why the US-backed coalition in Yemen is a threat to peace

WILL YELDHAM, WRITING FOR THE ORGANISATION FOR WORLD PEACE

When the Romans conquered Modern day Yemen they named it Arabia Felix or "Happy Arabia". However, the ongoing civil war, worsening humanitarian crisis and frustration of peace negotiations by neighbouring countries renders this description a dark ironic joke.

On Wednesday 1st July 2015, the United Nations designated the war in Yemen as a Level 3 humanitarian crisis, its most severe category. The U.S. responded the day after by issuing a joint press statement by department spokesperson John Kirby arguing for "a pause" in fighting which “would allow international aid organisations to deliver urgently needed food, medicine, and fuel to citizens throughout Yemen”. However, if the situation in Yemen is going to improve the international community needs to do more than simply issue nagging press releases.

There have been repeated attempts to end the conflict through negotiation, however each has collapsed through a combination of poor commitment from the warring factions involved and increasing meddling by neighbouring countries. These are split between the 10 states in an anti-Houthi coalition led by Saudi Arabia, and Iran, which has been waging a relentless PR campaign condemning the coalition. As a result, first the National Dialogue then the Riyadh Conference and now the recent Geneva conference have all disintegrated without result.

Recent UN investigations have revealed the humanitarian toll this unceasing conflict is having upon the civilian population. UN agencies say that, since March, 4.4 million people have received assistance, but this is only a fraction of those who desperately need help. The violence has killed more than 2,800 people, displaced one million and left more than 21 million people, 80 percent of the population, in need of some form of humanitarian aid and or protection. The Saudi-led coalition has also enforced a naval blockade which has prevented essential aid from reaching those in need. Both Yemeni military and Houthi are also accused of child conscription by UNICEF and Islamic relief. Indeed, in November 2009, over 400 children walked to the UNDP office in Sana’a to protest against the alleged Houthi abuse of children’s rights.

Modern Yemen was created in 1990 when North Yemen and Communist South Yemen merged and was tested during a brief civil war in 1994. However, regional tensions resurfaced in the summer of 2009 when government troops and Houthi rebels from the Shia Zaidi sect clashed in the north, killing hundreds and displacing more than a quarter of a million people. The recent, and frankly unexpected, success of Houthi rebels in capturing vast swathes of the country including the capital Sanaa led first to Hadi’s resignation on January 22 and subsequent flight to Saudi Arabia in February. The Houthis then declared themselves in full control of the government on 6 February, dissolving parliament and putting a Revolutionary Committee led by Mohammed Ali al-Houthi in charge of the country

In response, several states led by Saudi Arabia also mounted a military intervention in Yemen codenamed "Operation Decisive Storm". The Saudi-led coalition sided with Hadi’s government in exile and have been shelling Houthi positions from land and sea and hitting them with airstrikes. These have had a disastrous effect on civilians and on the country’s infrastructure with refugee camps and UNESCO heritage sites also targeted. The US is openly supporting the coalition by "providing intelligence sharing, targeting assistance, advisory and logistical support". Indeed, Human Rights Watch has even accused the US of supplying CBU-105 cluster munitions, prohibited in international law. The bombing has allegedly been scaled back as part of a new initiative "Operation Restoring Hope" however strikes continue to plague civilians and hamper humanitarian efforts by damaging airports such as Sana’a and Al Hudaya essential for transporting food and medical supplies.

The reasons for US involvement are largely strategic and have less to do with restoring a democratic government than preventing Iran’s growing power in the region. Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, stated that “The US ‘doesn’t want to see a threat to the [Bab Al Mandeb] strait and something that could affect the security of the Suez Canal". The U.S is so concerned with curbing Iranian control of the Bab Al Mandeb strait that they are unwittingly paving the way for Daesh control which would threaten global shipping through the Suez and provide Daesh with a massive source of revenue in tolls. Instead of simply attempting to bomb the rebels into submission, the anti-Houthi factions, be it Hadi’s government, the Saudi Coalition or the US, need to focus primarily on diplomatic solutions that don’t further harm civilians and economically cripple Yemen.

Admittedly, the most recent diplomatic endeavours in Geneva yielded little however this was principally the fault of the respective combatants and should in no way be taken as an indication that no diplomatic resolution can be found. The Geneva talks broke down before they ever got started; the two parties never even made it into the same room as each other. Even if they’d managed to get through the door, both sides chose to send second-tier political leaders to Geneva, with full knowledge that such leaders would not be able to make significant concessions or breakthroughs on their own.

U.N Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s appeal for a two-week humanitarian truce on the occasion of the Holy Month of Ramadan was simply cast aside by Ahmed al-Masiri, the leader of the Southern Resistance forces loyal to Hadi. He retorted that a humanitarian truce was "out of the question", stating "Ramadan is a holy month in which jihad is permissible". The fundamental problem was that the factions loyal to Hadi proposed such extortionate grounds for a ceasefire that the Houthi rebels could never have accepted them. While the Houthis sought a mutual ceasefire, the Saudis demanded nothing less than total surrender as the precondition for negotiations. Given that the Houthis have suffered relatively few territorial losses since the Saudis began their campaign, this was evidently never going to happen. However, this was no accident and was indicative of a lack of true commitment to ceasefire and negotiation on the part of the coalition. This ambivalence was echoed by Al-Masri who flippantly stated “We agreed [to come to Geneva] to please the UN, so that they don’t say we are against peace or that we are stubborn”. In such an atmosphere negotiation was impossible and will continue to be so unless the international community acts. The UN must stop pussyfooting around proposing talks doomed to failure and enforce ceasefire negotiations with the threat of economic sanctions and a peacekeeping operation. The possibility of peace being enforced in the current situation, with Houthi control of Yemen, would drive Hadi and the Saudi Coalition to the table.

Saudi Arabia and its allies (including Britain and the US) must also be held accountable for the atrocities committed in their bombing campaign. At the very least the U.S must cease supplying illegal munitions for use in Yemen. The Houthi rebels have displaced a democratic government, but simply carpet bombing the country isn’t going to get rid of them. Indeed, the impact of the bombing upon Houthi forces has been slight where as the damage to essential infrastructure has been devastating. A reduction in the bombing campaign and an actual commitment to diplomatic proceedings will not only have humanitarian benefits but also limit the potential expansion of Daesh into Yemen. If the Houthis are suddenly forced back and Hadi’s Sunni government weakly re-established in charge of an economically crippled country with divided security forces Yemen will be an easy target for Daesh at which point the US coalition against the Islamic State will start bombing them instead. A reduction in bombing will also allow humanitarian aid greater access to the country which will repair infrastructural damage, which can hopefully stem the tide of refugees fleeing the conflict and economically burdening neighbouring countries.

As late as September last year, President Obama was calling Yemen a bastion of successful anti-terrorism policy. Speaking in defence of “using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground” he cited Yemen as an example of where this tactic has been “successfully pursued … for years”. The irony here is paramount, not only is Yemen not a bastion of counter terrorism, it looks set to become increasingly dominated by Daesh if the bombing campaign lauded by Obama continues. For the moment at least his comments are as ambitious as the Romans' "Arabia Felix".

Find more from the OWP on their website and on Facebook.

Child Soldiers in South Sudan

Reports reveal further human rights abuses and child conscription

Will Yeldham, writing for the Organisation for World Peace

On June 29th the UN released a new report detailing not only ongoing child conscription by the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA), but also how attempts to verify first hand accounts were prevented by the SPLA. Members of the UN mission in Sudan (UNMISS) interviewed 115 victims and eyewitnesses in Unity State, which has been the sight of heavy fighting in recent months.  They recorded how the conflict has become characterised by 'new brutality and intensity' such as the allegation that SPLA soldiers raped then torched girls alive inside their homes. Indeed, The U.N. children’s agency also stated earlier this month that that warring forces have carried out horrific crimes against children, including castration, rape and tying them together before slitting their throats.
This corroborates the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. IGAD is ostensibly a trading bloc of 8 east African countries but has also provided a key platform to debate economic and security issues plaguing the region. Members of IGAD's monitoring and verification mechanism described how Major General Johnson Olony and Shilluk Militia, affiliated to SPLA, had "carried out forcible recruitment of an estimated 500-1000 youth, many of whom were children aged between 13 and 17 years". This took place between 7-9 June, when militias conducted house to house searches of Kodok and Wau Shilluk, and is only one example from the lengthy report listing similar violations.

South Sudan gained independence in 2011; however, the present conflict was sparked in 2013 when forces loyal to President Salva Kiir tried to put down an uprising led by his former deputy, Riek Machar.  In the resulting civil conflict thousands of people have been killed and almost two million displaced.  There has been renewed fighting after peace talks between the factions disintegrated in March this year and the SPLA launched a major offensive in April with fierce fighting in Unity State's northern Mayom district. 
The problems facing the international community in reducing violence and quelling the resulting human rights abuses are twofold. Firstly, the present difficulties in effectively punishing generals responsible has engendered a dangerous lack of accountability. The UN and its member states have spent many years encouraging the demobilisation of child soldiers in the region and supported the creation of the government's national Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Commission. However, in the case of warlord David Yau Yau, UNICEF is in fact funding the reintegration of 1755 boys in his militia after he signed a peace deal that bagged him a high ranking government job. Indeed, the threat of culpability was so slight that Yau Yau gave the approximate number of children in his militia as twice that of what the DDRC found and released. Government officials who subsequently gave each of Yau Yau's soldiers monetary gifts only reinforced the benefits of child soldiering and in fact drew more children into the ranks ahead of planned release ceremonies.

All this means that, despite the illegality of the use and conscription of children under 18 in South Sudanese law, it appears as a legitimate method of recruitment to commanders on both sides of the conflict. 
Secondly, the hampering of UN investigations by SPLA forces must not be tolerated. The UN states that attempts to corroborate the eyewitness accounts featured in its most recent report were hampered by the SPLA who denied their teams access to the areas under question. "We call on the SPLA to fulfil this commitment and allow our human rights officers unfettered access to the sites of these reported violations," said Ellen Margrethe Loej, the head of UNMISS. However, the military spokesperson for the SPLA Philip Aguer Panyang stated that the accusations made in the UN report were in need of further verification and denied that troops had interfered with UN investigations stating: "Our role as an army is to facilitate humanitarian deliveries and access for civilian protection". Such denials only serve to hamper efforts to highlight and undermine the ongoing abuses. 

Both these issues lend credence to Human Rights Watch's comment that “military and political leaders on all sides have failed to make any serious attempt to reduce abuses committed by their forces, or to hold them to account”. It must be the task of the UN and the wider international community to force serious reduction in human rights violations through targeted sanctions, the proposed arms embargo and diplomatic pressure.

Find more from the OWP on their website and on Facebook.