President Macron in Benin should demand the release of Reckya Madougou and Joel Aivo

On the eve of President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Benin, the Brussels-based NGO “Human Rights Without Frontiers” urged the French President to demand the release of two famous opposition leaders, Reckya Madougou and Joël Aivo, respectively sentenced to 20 years and 10 years in prison.

This month, Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF) has filed a report with the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for Benin, in which the organisation outlined its concerns over human rights abuses in Benin, with particular regard to the continued detention of opposition figures Reckya Madougou and Joël Aivo and the fact that they were not included in a list of 17 detainees due to be temporarily released after a 13 June 2022 meeting between President Patrice Talon and Thomas Boni Yayi, former President of Benin (2006-2016).

Reckya Madougou, from her Facebook account

The submission by HRWF included details about the case of Reckya Madougou who was sentenced at the end of 2021 to 20 years in prison for allegedly financing terrorism. She had been arrested in March 2021 accused of wiring thousands of dollars to a military officer for the purpose of killing unnamed authorities. Her candidacy had earlier been rejected by the electoral commission. HRWF went on to detail that Ms Madougou was the leader of the opposition party, Les Démocrates, and a presidential candidate. HRWF’s statement also described Ms Madougou’s civil society campaign — “Don’t touch my constitution” — that rallied against leaders seeking to extend their rule under the guise of constitutional reform. The movement spread across West Africa, gaining her a high profile.

RMTB, CC BY-SA 4.0, Joel Aivo – via Wikimedia Commons

The HRWF report to the UPR also gave details about the case of Joël Aivo and his December 2021 sentencing by the controversial Economic Crime and Terrorism Court (CRIET) to 10 years in prison for allegedly plotting against the state and laundering money.

HRWF explained in their submission that Mr Aivo is a law professor who challenged Talon in the 2021 election. He was held for eight months ahead of sentencing and pleaded not guilty to the charges of plotting against the state and money laundering.

HRWF has been monitoring the backsliding that has been taking place around human rights in Benin since 2016. “We were especially dismayed to see that Reckya Madougou and Joël Aivo were not on the June 2022 list of 17 detainees to be temporarily released. Ms Madougou and Mr Aivo should be fully released immediately. The persecution and detention of opposition figures has no place in a democracy and we are concerned for the welfare of these two politicians. President Macron must use his visit to Benin to demand that President Patrice Talon release them,” Willy Fautré, director of Human Rights Without Frontiers told The European Times.

Pros and cons: International Ministerial on FoRB - London 2022

The fourth annual Ministerial conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) was held in London following a strong impetus to bring awareness of, and action to, the many transgressions against FoRB around the world.

This initiative was first held in Washington DC and the instigation of the US government in 2018, and then again in Washington DC in 2019. Lockdowns cancelled the 2020 conference whilst the 2021 conference, hosted by Poland, was virtual.

One of the most notable aspects of this initiative is that it seeks to go against the current of political interests driven primarily by economic factors – which certainly puts these deliberations on a higher ethical ground.

That the UK administration has embraced this initiative and held such a major conference – taking over the entire QE II Conference Centre in London for two days – is clearly a commitment to FoRB. Today, the state of religious freedom in many parts of the world is in a pretty poor state.

From China to Russia, from Nigeria to India and Pakistan, we find human rights abuses founded in religious discrimination ranging from rape and murder to organ harvesting and banning of innocent religious groups.

The two days of the conference along with many other additional ‘side events’ in Parliament, government buildings, and others around London and the UK were held with the intention to bring focus on the often egregious violations and suppression of this essential human right.

Will this bring about improved conditions for those believers – be it religious or non-religious – remains to be seen? But the signs are promising. A multi-country juggernaut is being built to highlight these issues rather than turn a blind eye.

A number of conference declarations were signed by governments – certainly not enough as we can see, the key declaration was signed by only 30 countries. Led by the United States and the United Kingdom, the remainder were mostly European – though notable omissions were France, Germany and Spain. Whilst outside of Europe, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Columbia, Israel and Japan were also signatories.

Overall statments

The Broad Conference Statement of Freedom of Religion or Belief can be found on the government site (here). It commits governments:

• to protect “freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief and ensure individuals can freely change their beliefs, or not believe, without penalty or fear of violence”;
• to “raise awareness of the current challenges to FoRB across the world, the relevance of FoRB to other human rights, and best practice in preventing violations and abuses and protecting and promoting FoRB for all”;
• to “speak out bilaterally, as well as through multilateral institutions, against violations and abuses of the right to freedom of religion or belief” whilst working “more closely together with international partners, civil society actors, human rights experts, academia and faith and belief actors to implement practical solutions to address FoRB challenges, exchange best practice, and build shared commitments” whilst
• strengthening “the voices and build the capacity of defenders of FoRB, including religious or belief actors, inspiring future leaders and young people, and building and reinforcing global coalitions for collective action”.

Words versus actions

We know that words are cheap whilst action and commitment can be expensive – but the simple fact that these governments have made such a move in the face of growing intolerance in some parts of the world is a positive sign.

Some actions taken, in particular by the US administration have shown their teeth by declaring the actions taken in Myanmar against Rohingya Moslems as genocide – something the UK government should emulate.

It goes without saying that civil society played a significant role in encouraging and moving this whole process along.

The creation of FoRB Round Tables or Forums are entirely civil society innovations open to any individual or belief group where issues of religious discrimination can be aired and actions taken to urge government or other sectors of civil society to take a stand on different issues.

These processes play an important role in keeping governments both informed and on their toes with regard to abuses occurring in the world. Most notable ones are in the US, UK and in Brussels (convening groups from around Europe) whilst one about to start in Mexico was announced during the conference.

Constructive Criticism

The conference organisation was not without criticism, however.

Many NGOs and even governments complained about the extremely late notification of seat availability and corresponding access passes for attendees which generated a lot of difficulties for attendees.

Quite a number of NGOs complained about the ‘discrimination’ between civil society and official government delegates as civil society did not have access to any of the main proceedings.

A floor had been assigned to civil society with 12 booths and this was relatively empty most of the time.

Those with limited civil society passes were consigned to stay in isolation whilst the main conference went on without them, with room for many more attendees.

This differentiation was seemingly at odds with the spirit of the whole conference and was not a credit to the organisers. Unfortunately, the successful model used by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Human Dimension Meetings, where all attendees are able to meet each other and attend all meetings was not adopted –creating discontent amongst civil society groups.

Conclusion

Still, whatever the thinking behind excluding sections of civil society, these things are mainly organisational issues which can be easily corrected for future conferences.

Overall, the initiative driven by the UK and US governments to ensure that the vital human right of freedom of religion or belief is raised, exposed, protected and nurtured was an extremely important step in moving the political momentum in the right direction.

Russia is wrong, and what about the EU?

The attack on Ukraine represents a great paradox: there is public international law that clearly envisages the possibility of international interventions to protect civilians or collectively reduce countries that use war for non-defensive purposes (such as Russia); but we do not have effective global political arrangements to do so.

The UN Security Council, charged with ensuring global peace and security, contains Russia and China as permanent members with veto power. While Russia’s action is unjustifiable, my hypothesis is that certain macro-social processes have been at work that have indirectly favoured aggression. In the following, I will try to point both to some of these developments and to certain alternatives that the EU could take.

EU countries placed much of the responsibility for their security in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), a US-led collective defence body created at the same time as the UN to defend Western interests against Soviet communism. The UN (which included the USSR) was intended to preserve world peace, but the West also created its own organisation because it saw the USSR as a threat. NATO symbolises this Cold War, so its eastward enlargement into former Soviet republics is interpreted in Russia as a threatening encirclement. Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO has been a trigger. The European Union has probably been the most successful region in the world in terms of peacemaking through political integration and deepening interdependence and trade. The United States of Europe, however, has not come into existence, in part, because European defence was delegated to NATO. When Trump announced his cessation of support for NATO, the European Union realised the problem of defence dependence. Now, Isn’t it possible for the European Union to continue to integrate and, moreover, to expand eastwards, while not excluding Russia? NATO’s eastern expansion conveys the idea of threat, while EU expansion raises expectations of shared benefits and identity, of interdependence. This may sound idealistic, so a less ambitious prospect would be for the European Union to assume its own defence and complete its political integration.

The humanitarian situation in Ukraine’s pro-independence provinces deserves special attention: it is one of Russia’s arguments for legitimising the invasion. The UN should send international observers to Donetsk and Luhansk, to dispel any shadow of doubt about Ukraine’s behaviour since the signing of the Minsk peace accords in 2014. Putin considers them unilaterally broken by Ukraine. In February, the UN published a notice announcing that the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened an investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. This is a step in the right direction that could be complemented by the measure proposed here.

This in no way legitimises Russia’s attack, nor its desire to demilitarise Ukraine, nor its call for a coup d’état by the Ukrainian military to simplify negotiations with Moscow. Crossing such a dangerous red line for world peace cannot be ignored: it would open the way for similar actions by Russia or other countries.

However, any military action against Russia, inside or outside Ukraine, would have devastating global consequences, both for Ukraine, Russia and Europe. Likewise, arming Ukraine is a dangerous strategy. Other historical experiences, such as Afghanistan (1978-1992) and Syria, show that arming a population is a ticking time bomb whose place and range of explosion are unpredictable.

Unequivocal denunciations by as many states as possible, diplomacy and economic sanctions seem the only immediate way forward. Russia cares about sanctions: inflation, the freezing of funds and the closing of potential markets for gas sales hurt it. Although it looks like a superpower, its economy is not robust, internal inequalities are rampant, it is threatened by terrorist groups and there is dissent. In the medium term, reducing NATO’s influence (until its eventual dissolution), strengthening European foreign and defence policy and expanding the Union eastwards should be the way forward.

Finally, the transformation and universalisation of the UN’s collective security system, as the only framework for settling international conflicts, but democratised and endowed with indisputable coercive capacity, seems to be the essential collective project if humanity is not to be finally extinguished by the threats it itself produces.

If the federation of the United States of the world takes too long, what is sometimes seen as utopian may be remembered as the practical solution that could not be tried out because of narrow-mindedness but which would have prevented civilisation from succumbing to barbarism.

Originally published in Spanish at Diario de Navarra and SerGarcia.ES

The seriousness of squatting in Spain

Squatting is a serious problem that is gaining more and more strength and involving more and more political and social actors, becoming a daily space in the media, causing tension and indignation in all citizens. For those who admit them and, in some cases, promote them, I say to them that “Serious is only one squatting”.

Faced with an unspoken crime, there are no effective measures to tackle the problem, on the contrary, squatters seem to go unpunished and are increasingly defiant before the Law and Society, because they frequently find that this antisocial and unlawful conduct goes unpunished. The law today leaves property owners unprotected and the State Security Forces without legal cover to protect private property. The measures adopted in recent years to alleviate this situation have been manifestly ineffective, so alternatives must be sought so that property owners are not dispossessed of their property with impunity.

“The right to property is a constitutionally recognised right” and enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights. We all have the right to enjoy our property and no one can prevent us from doing so, except by means of the law. Squatting should be typified criminally as “permanent robbery” and would give the Public Forces the power to automatically expel the squatters without the need for a court order, but putting them at the disposal of a judge once expelled from the squatted property, with a prison sentence and automatic suspension of all social benefits received and if there are minor children that they pass their protection to the social services.

On the other hand, the squatter is a criminal and cannot use the principle of the inviolability of the home as his right to stay in the squatted property. From the moment he is outside the law, the squatter cannot use it as he pleases by claiming that housing is a fundamental right; this argument cannot be used in illegality, as the Constitutional Court has declared. In a state governed by the rule of law, the right of the one who violates and abuses it cannot prevail.

When a squatting is detected and reported, the police must immediately proceed to evict them, for which the law must make it clear that a squatter does not acquire the right to be in the squatted dwelling at any time, which is why it must be urgently typified as a crime of “permanent theft” if at some point they have managed to register, sometimes favoured by the administration itself, either by registering them with the utilities, etc. Once the squatting is known and denounced, these benefits are automatically eliminated for having acquired them by fraud of the Law, where the police are legitimised to evict the friends of others without the need for a judicial order.

A legislative reform is urgently needed to define the squatting of a house, whoever it belongs to, as a permanent theft and to speed up the eviction by the Security Forces as soon as they become aware of the squatted property. Defining squatting as robbery, given the magnitude of the stolen property, should be punished with prison, it is necessary to ensure the enforcement of sentences, on the other hand, the offender will lose official aid and subsidies and will not be able to aspire to the benefit of official housing. If we reward the crime of squatting with subsidised housing, we do a tremendous injustice to the people who use the legal path to aspire to official aid and benefits. The squatter must be clear that this is not a solution or a shortcut to get housing, the path of crime will only lead him to prison.

A social problem is added to a squat: deterioration of neighbourhood coexistence, tension and insecurity, we have to face it, because every day we see more violent reactions in the neighbourhoods and neighbours who try to take justice into their own hands, which leads to a notable insecurity and degradation of the quality of life of a community, on the other hand, the guarantee laws on the theft of property go against coexistence and social justice.

“A crime without punishment and penalty would be to allow and tolerate it” and would represent a great offence to coexistence. A government that allows injustice is a harmful and dangerous government for society.

City diplomacy offers opportunities

Published originally on December 26th 2020 at the TaipeiTimes.

This year has been unusual on many levels. In the midst of a global health crisis ravaging the world, Czech Senate President Milos Vystrcil in September led a delegation of 89 civic and political leaders to Taiwan, the only corner of the world that for more than 250 days (until Tuesday) did not register a single locally transmitted COVID-19 infection.

The visit caused quite a stir in international media and intensified already strained ties between the EU and China. Taiwan, a technologically advanced economy with a robust democracy, is a like-minded partner of the EU, but remains a highly sensitive matter within EU-China relations.

China considers Taiwan a breakaway province, despite never having ruled it. The EU has its own “one China” policy, but has officially committed to promoting “practical solutions regarding Taiwan’s participation in international frameworks.”

Following the Czech delegation, Brussels and Beijing engaged in a harsh exchange, with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) threatening that the senate president would pay a “heavy price,” while his German counterpart warned China against making such threats against an EU member state.

As tensions in EU-China relations remain high, and international cooperation becomes more challenging, there is good reason to return to the visit, and consider some of its less talked about contributions.

Prague Mayor Zdenek Hrib, who oversaw the signing of the Prague-Taipei sister city framework in January, was also in the delegation. In a global context where cities become key players in addressing complex challenges through innovation and creativity, this aspect deserves more attention.

As the pandemic has illustrated, local governments can increase their capacity to network internationally and bring solutions, while catalyzing new political consciousness. Cities shape identities. They help celebrate connectivity, diversity and openness by warming people-to-people relations and enhancing social networks. This, in turn, facilitates government-to-government ties.

Considering Taiwan’s abnormal international status, city diplomacy provides a particularly valuable platform to circumvent its isolation, by leveraging international cooperation and information sharing on a city-to-city level. Taiwan’s cities must further invest in such diplomacy and seek to build on the momentum the “Taiwan model” has ensured.

The sister-city agreement linking Prague and Taipei includes a wide range of cooperation, including on business, science, technology, tourism, education, healthcare and culture, as well as a smart city cooperation agreement. Through this partnership, the cities can act in their own right, stress collaboration over competition, empower their citizens and contribute to making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Taiwan is already working toward meeting the 17 SDGs. As COVID-19 is taking the world further away from the goals, cities’ contributions have become all the more relevant.

As such, Taipei has sought to advance several goals, including good health and well-being (Goal 3), quality education (Goal 4), decent work and economic growth (Goal 8), innovation and infrastructure (Goal 9), and sustainable cities (Goal 11).

Taiwan has a story to tell, but participating in international organizations will remain difficult. Taiwanese scientists were even excluded from participating in all UNESCO-affiliated events, which has shown that Taiwan is being excluded from international participation. It also indicates that China’s influence within UN organizations continues to increase. Yet, this should not constrain sharing science across cities. Cities are about choices and choices bring opportunities for all.

According to the Taipei City Government Web site, it has established ties with 51 sister cities across 37 countries. Four of these are in Europe: Versailles (1986), Warsaw (1995), Vilnius (1998) and Riga (2001). Since 2012, Helsinki is also a “friendship city” of Taipei.

These partnerships need a fresh approach and adjustment to address current challenges. In addition, it is evident that more similar cooperation should be built across Europe. This will require rapprochement from Europe and Taiwan. Both sides must recognize the value of using city diplomacy to leverage existing strengths and to enable new ones to flourish.

A meeting between Budapest Mayor Gergely Karacsony and Representative to Hungary Liu Shih-chung (劉世忠), a former Tainan deputy secretary-general, is a welcome initiative. The two exchanged ideas on smart cities, innovation and city diplomacy. The next welcome step would be to establish a sister-city agreement. This would benefit both cities, just like the Grenoble, France-Taoyuan sister-city cooperation signed in March 2018 is hoped to do, particularly in technology, innovation and circular economy.

Kaohsiung, with the largest harbor in Taiwan and among the top 50 world container ports, should also consider expanding its network in Europe, with Rotterdam, the Netherlands, or Antwerp, Belgium, adding to its only sister city in Europe, Erzgebirgskreis, Germany (1993).

In a hyper-connected world, cities across Taiwan should further embrace the practical benefits of city diplomacy. At the same time, as the EU rethinks its China policy, European cities must be more involved, and expand their international sister-city network.

Following the Czech delegation visit, Minister of Economic Affairs Wang Mei-hua (王美花) said the visit was proof that “nothing can stop Taiwan and the Czech Republic’s determination to defend freedom, democracy and protect human rights.”

Let city diplomacy take this forward into the year to come.

Source: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2020/12/26/2003749395