By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 26 2024 – As negotiations within the UN Security Council and internationally continue, the humanitarian response to Gaza continues to be under threat.

Palestine’s representative to the UN has declared that a new resolution may be in the works, which will also include “practical measures” to ensure a humanitarian ceasefire and to withhold any support for Israel in the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

Riyad H. Mansour, the Permanent Observer to the State of Palestine, spoke to reporters last Thursday (February 22, 2024). In addition to calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, the measures would include urging countries to stop sending weapons and ammunition to Israel and implementing sanctions on them.

“The occupying authority that is defying everyone, defying international law, defying the ICJ (International Court of Justice) by refusing to implement the provisional measures that the ICJ asked… that country that behaves in that manner should face consequences in the international community, including in the General Assembly,” he said.

Mansour also stated that they would be pushing for Palestine to be admitted as a member of the United Nations, beginning with gaining support from member states before the General Assembly before bringing it to the Security Council.

“The rights of the people of Palestine must be determined by the people,” he said. “It’s only us—the Palestinian people—who will determine our right to self-determination, including our independence. We will not negotiate that principle, and we will not ask for permission from anyone to do so.”

The decision to advocate for these measures was the result of an ambassadorial-level meeting between Mansour and the members of the Arab League, which was convened in the wake of the United States’ decision to veto the Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza on February 20.

Algeria, a non-permanent member of the Council at the moment, presented the resolution for discussion on February 20. The resolution received 13 votes in favor, with only the United States’ veto and the United Kingdom abstaining. The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thompson-Green, told reporters that the United States has presented its own draft resolution, an alternative that would be “forward-leaning.” This resolution, she claimed, would include a call for a temporary ceasefire “as soon as practicable,” that would allow for the safe release of all hostages held by Hamas, and for humanitarian aid to reach Gaza.

Despite the international community’s outcry of support for a humanitarian ceasefire, this has been repeatedly undermined. Declining support for UNRWA created challenges. The allegations leveled at the organization have resulted in two separate investigations into the matter. Yet, over 17 countries, many of whom are classified as high-income countries, have suspended their funding for the organization, leaving it more vulnerable at a time when its operations are overextended. As the first major donor to pull its support, the United States set the example.

This has risked further jeopardizing UNRWA’s operations, which have been funded through to the end of February, but leave their future even more uncertain.

“UNRWA remains and is the backbone of the humanitarian work that is being done in Gaza at great cost to UNRWA staff themselves,” said Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

Meanwhile, other humanitarian agencies operating in the region continue to struggle to work in unsafe conditions. The same day that the ceasefire resolution was vetoed, the World Food Programme (WFP) announced that they had been forced to halt their deliveries into North Gaza, citing security reasons. They described witnessing “unprecedented levels of desperation” and warned that the risk of famine and disease in Gaza has been confirmed, wherein the scarcity of food and safe water has already compromised the nutrition and immunity of civilians.

Speaking at the Security Council, Christopher Lockyear, Secretary-General of Doctors Without Borders, urged for a ceasefire, detailing how staff have also been caught up in the attacks, including those who have lost their lives, or been forced to evacuate nine different health facilities since October 7. He warned that the humanitarian response in Gaza was “haphazard, opportunistic,” and “entirely inadequate.”

“Calls for more humanitarian assistance have echoed across this chamber,” he said. “Yet in Gaza we have less and less each day—less space, less medicine, less food, less water, less safety.”

He also condemned the Council for delaying and preventing efforts to adopt a ceasefire resolution while civilians and aid workers continue to live in such dangerous conditions. “The consequences of casting international humanitarian law to the wind will reverberate well beyond Gaza. It will be an enduring burden on our collective conscience. This is not just political inaction—it has become political complicity.”

Meanwhile, people in Gaza live in such dire conditions. Now, nearly 30,000 Palestinians have been reported dead, the majority of whom have been women and children. As of February 23, only seven hospitals in Gaza remain operational to accommodate those who remain. The city of Rafah, which is supposedly a safe zone, now hosts more than 1 million civilians, even as hostilities rage on. With the looming warning that the Israeli military will mobilize forces into Rafah by March 12, the first day of Ramadan, if the hostages are not released, the international community now has a deadline.

The negotiations to secure a pause in the war are continuing in Qatar, following last week’s Paris talks, which a delegation from Israel attended.

There had been an understanding of the “basic contours” of a hostage deal for a temporary ceasefire in Gaza, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told CNN on Sunday.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Magnus Lovold
GENEVA, Switzerland, Feb 26 2024 – There are moments when international treaties, long forgotten by the general public, suddenly spring back to life. Moments when glimpses of reality shine through the thick-laden bureaucracies of the United Nations and catch the attention of the world outside.

The debate that unfolded in “sub-working group on current and emerging implementation issues” of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on Wednesday 21 February was such a moment.

The State of Palestine and Control Arms — a civil society coalition — had, in January, requested a debate about the impact of weapons transfers to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Never before, since the ATT’s entry into force in 2014, had there been a formal discussion about non-compliance under the treaty.

The debate would, in more ways than one, become a clash of two worlds. On the one hand, the uncompromising and bloody reality on the ground in Gaza, where nearly 30,000 civilians — including more than 10,000 children — have been killed by Israeli bombs over the past four months.

On the other, the hushed and self-possessed world of multilateral diplomacy, where drama rarely elevates beyond the occasional request for points of order.

The stakes surrounding the debate had broken through the roof when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded, on 26 January, that there is a plausible risk that Israel’s actions in Gaza are violating the Genocide Convention, placing the countries that are supplying Israel with weapons — most of which are parties to the ATT, with the exception of the United States — under significant pressure.

The foreign ministers of Italy and Spain had already announced that they will no longer export weapons to Israel. Citing the ATT and the EU common position on the export of military technology and equipment, a Dutch court had ordered, on 12 February, the government of the Netherlands to stop the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel.

While the Dutch government announced that they would appeal the order, the ruling had, in the following weeks, taken on a life of its own, leading parliamentarians and civil society groups in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Denmark to urge their governments to stop arms transfers to Israel.

The big question, when the parties to the ATT met in Geneva last week, was how these countries would respond to allegations that they, by supplying Israel with weapons, risk complicity in genocide and other international crimes.

The ATT seeks to prevent and reduce human suffering by establishing common international standards for the transfer of conventional weapons. Specifically, the treaty prohibits countries from transferring weapons if they know, at the time of transfer, that the weapons could be used to commit international crimes.

According to Hurini Alwishewa, a legal expert at the Graduate Institute, countries involved in supplying Israel with weapons can no longer claim ignorance: “With the ICJ finding that there is a plausible claim of genocide, the knowledge requirement is clearly fulfilled, and therefore exports of arms to Israel must not be authorised”, she said at Wednesday’s meeting.
In the run-up to the meeting, there had been rumours that the arms exporting countries would simply refuse to engage on the matter. There was even speculation that some countries would seek to dodge the debate altogether by filibustering the preceding agenda items.

But ultimately, the exporting countries realised that they had no other choice than to at least try to explain themselves. A few minutes before the debate was about to start, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands could be observed wheeling their ambassadors in to the brutalist conference room at the CICG in Geneva.

Speaking from the podium, Nada Tarbush, a counsellor of Palestine’s mission to the UN who rose to prominence after a widely published speech delivered in November, was determined not to let the ambassadors’ off the hook.

“We are once again reaching out to exporting states to urge and urge them to explain their respective policies on arms exports to Israel. Particularly the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Czech Republic, Norway, and other states that may be involved as transit states including Greece, Cyprus and Belgium“, Tarbush said, when laying out her case.

“We would be grateful to receive details of all extant arms export, transit, and brokering licenses of the supply of military and dual use items to Israel”.

The arms exporters were, however, not prepared to engage in specifics. Instead, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands both downplayed its role in supplying Israel with weapons.

“UK defence exports to Israel represent a small portion of UK arms exports”, Aiden Liddle, the ambassador of the United Kingdom, said. While he made it clear that the ICJ’s January ruling “is binding on Israel” and suggested that the United Kingdom’s export licences to Israel may be revoked “if circumstances change and we reach a different view”, Liddle did not explain how his country had initially concluded that weapons exports to Israel was in line with the ATT.

More evasively still, the Netherlands explained that “individual licenses can be granted, as long as there is no overriding risk that military goods may be misused by the end user” and stated that “applications requests for Israel have been granted in certain cases and denied in other cases”.

Like the United Kingdom, however, the Netherlands failed to lay out the details of its export licensing decisions. Nor did they explain how they had concluded that the export of F-35 fighter jet parts comes with “no overriding risk” of misuse by Israel.

Germany, in a significantly more aggressive move, took issue with the debate as such, criticising Palestine and Control Arms for attempting “to politicise the ATT process”. Instead of explaining how Germany’s export licences to Israel could be in line with international law, Ambassador Thomas Göbel offered what seemed like a full-fledged support of the manner in which Israel conducts its military operations in Gaza.

Echoing points made earlier in the debate by a representative of Israel — a signatory but not a party to the ATT — Göbel stated that “Hamas must stop its rocket attacks and refrain from using civilians as human shields and civilian infrastructure for military purposes […] For Germany, Israel’s security is not negotiable”.

The exporting countries’ attempts to justify their involvement in Israel’s military operations in Gaza were, ultimately, found wanting. Tarbush made no secret of her disappointment, accusing the exporting countries for putting “themselves in a situation of criminal liability, of immorality in a situation where double standards risk irreversibly eroding the credibility of international law and the international system built since the Second World War”.

But however incomplete, the mere fact that a debate about arms transfers to Israel could take place in the ATT is a positive step for the treaty. Too often, international treaties get caught up in their own institutional bureaucracies, resulting in a detachment from the realities that the treaties are set up to address. Since its entry into force ten years ago, the ATT has, sadly, been no exception.

Instead of criticising the State of Palestine and Control Arms for attempts to “politicise” the process, Germany and other countries supplying Israel with weapons, should see the debate as an opportunity to set a new, more reality-oriented, standard for ATT implementation.

Despite its imperfections, international law can play a key role in exposing double-standards. By offering specifics now, western states will come in a much stronger position to demand transparency from others in the future.

More importantly, history shows that countries supplying other countries with weapons have significant power to shape the conduct — and even outcomes — of military operations; to ensure that civilians are protected or, to put it bluntly, left for slaughter. Indeed, that realisation was one of the factors driving the development of the ATT in the first place.

As Israel is preparing its ground invasion of Rafah, arms exporting countries are bound to be placed under increasing pressure. On Friday 23 February, a group of 41 UN experts, citing the ATT, called for any transfer of weapons to Israel to “cease immediately”. If arms exporting countries are serious about their commitments to international law and a rules-based order, they should heed this call.

Otherwise, the Munich Security Conference’s recent assessment of world politics as a steady trajectory towards a zero-sum game could well become reality.

Source: Spoiler Alert

Spoiler Alert provides breaking news and analysis about international law and treaty-making, revealing the hidden diplomatic moves that shape the world.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By William Webb
CHIANGMAI, Thailand, Feb 26 2024 – Rangoon Nights is rocking. The bar is on its feet and the cocktail shaker is shaking in abandon as the band Born In Burma starts pumping out its beat.

Except we’re not in Rangoon or Burma (officially called Myanmar), but in the northern Thai town of Chiangmai which has evolved into a hub for activists, fugitives, and those taking a break from the war tearing their country apart.

Dancing among them with a wraith-like grace is Sakura—her nom de guerre—who, like others in the bar popular with Myanmar exiles, is there both to let her hair down and to raise funds for the revolutionary movement fighting the military junta that seized power three years ago.

Sakura’s personal operation—run by a small, close-knit team—is to deliver food parcels to a few dozen political prisoners held by the regime in appalling conditions across Myanmar. More than 1,500 are documented to have died in detention by force or by neglect since the coup. Over 20,000 are known to be behind bars.

“The parcels are a message for them—that we still support you and don’t forget you,” says Sakura.

Her project evolved by accident. Sakura was in Yangon in early 2021, joining vast crowds of anti-coup protesters, when her cousin was arrested and disappeared into the prison system. Suspecting she was held in Yangon’s notorious Insein jail (built by British colonisers in the 1800s), lawyers told Sakura that if she delivered a food parcel with her cousin’s name and it was accepted at the prison, then it would signal she was indeed inside.

It worked. Sakura shared this piece of useful information on Facebook, the social media outlet favoured by the resistance, while the junta uses Telegram. Soon, she started receiving pleas for help from families of other prisoners.

Sakura’s food parcel project was born. It moved with her to Thailand in 2022 after she fled police raids on her Yangon home. “I can’t go back,” she says.

Her small but effective operation speaks volumes about the war in Myanmar—largely forgotten beyond its borders; ineffectual international institutions and humanitarian organisations; little outside aid. But juxtaposed with domestic and vibrant civil society organisations like Sakura’s that strive to make a difference, work efficiently, and give a chance for a better future.

Sakura’s parcels—assembled inside Myanmar—contain soup powder to flavour bland prison mush, instant noodles, cookies, ingredients for much-loved tea-leaf salad, anti-bacterial soap for skin diseases, soap powder for clothes, shampoo, and toothbrush and paste. Plus the all-important Premier brand of coffee mix, which acts as a form of currency among prisoners.

The team presently delivers to about 35 prisoners a month, a tiny fraction of the growing numbers that the junta is incarcerating in a prison construction boom, one of the few sectors of the economy benefiting from the civil war.

Faces of the dead. Myanmar’s non-profit Assistance Association for Political Prisoners has a museum in the Thai border town of Mae Sot documenting the identities of over 3,000 civilians killed by the military since it seized power in 2021, as well as those killed since the first post-independence coup in 1962.

Working with a total monthly budget of some 3.0 million kyat (about USD 850 at the street rate), Sakura also sends money to sustain poor families whose main breadwinners are now behind bars. One is the mother of a Yangon hotel receptionist in her 20s who was sentenced to 15 years.

“Her crime was to have donated about USD 10 to the resistance. Police seized her phone and found the payment on the app. Her mother is ill and cannot work,” explains Sakura, who learned English in a Buddhist monastery and comes from a family of farmers.

Delivering the parcels is not a typical Deliveroo operation. Funds are sent from Thailand by various means to her small team in Myanmar, who, at the risk of arrest for ‘supporting terrorism’, buy the items and pack the parcels. They are then discreetly passed to lawyers representing the prisoners, who pass them on to family members who take them on their prison visits.

Sanitary products are included for some female detainees. “Sometimes we also get special requests for clothes and underwear. My budget doesn’t always stretch,“ she says.

On the other side of Chiangmai, Sonny Swe, a well-known Myanmar entrepreneur and publisher formerly based in Yangon, reflects on the trauma of over eight years of solitary confinement in prison, from 2004 to 2013, and the importance then of family visits bringing food parcels.

“Meditation, exercise, reading” were the bedrock of his survival, he says over a hearty Burmese breakfast of mohinga fish soup in his café, Gatone’s (Baldy’s). He was held in five different prisons and the long distances from home prevented regular family visits.

“I kept telling myself, ‘I am strong, strong. I will survive. They will not break me. I will defeat them.’ But once you come out of prison, you understand the toll, the trauma. You think you are fine and strong but you are not.”

Bo Kyi, Joint Secretary of the non-profit Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), was a political prisoner for seven years and knows well the succour provided by family and friends to those incarcerated.

“Family support is very important for a political prisoner,” he says. Now 59, he was jailed from 1990–93 for demonstrating and calling for release of all political prisoners, and arrested again in 1994 for four more years. He says military intelligence tried to recruit him as an informer but he refused and, in turn, demanded freedom for all political prisoners and for the regime to enter into dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi who was then under house arrest. Leader of the elected government overthrown in the coup, she is back in prison.

Bo Kyi co-founded AAPP in the Thai border town of Mae Sot in March 2000. The organisation meticulously documents identities of political prisoners and tracks their fate, as well as civilians killed by the regime. AAPP, deemed an illegal organisation by the regime, also offers training in dealing with trauma and counselling services, assisted by Johns Hopkins University, Maryland.

As of late February, AAPP has documented the names and identities of 20,147 people it defines as political prisoners, including over 4,000 women and 300 children. Sentenced to death, so far, are 15 women and 136 men. Four were executed on July 23, 2022, including well known activist Ko Jimmy.

As of January 31 this year, it had documented 1,588 people who were “killed through force or neglect” during detention by the regime and its supporters since the coup. The actual number may be much higher. “Torture is endemic,” AAPP says. A large number of those killed in detention are in Sagaing Region, “where resistance by the people is fiercest,”  says AAPP.

They are not just statistics. Speaking of the bravery of those inside Myanmar who try to alleviate the plight of prisoners, Sakura shares the latest shocking news.

Noble Aye, a prominent human rights activist, was reportedly killed in detention along with a companion, apparently after a court hearing on February 8 in Bago Region. They had been detained at a checkpoint in Waw Township on January 20, allegedly carrying weapons and ammunition, charges that the resistance say were false.

She had been jailed twice before as a political prisoner and shared a cell with Zin Mar Aung, the current foreign affairs minister in the shadow National Unity Government set up after the coup.

As it does regularly, the regime was reported to have blamed her death in detention on an escape attempt. The family says they received information that her body was secretly cremated. Noble Aye was 49 and in bad health.

William Webb is an independent travel writer

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Feb 26 2024 – Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine marked its second anniversary on 24 February. And while civil society is offering an immense voluntary effort in Ukraine, in Russia activists have faced intense constraints. The suspicious death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny is part of a great wave of repression. He’s the latest in a long list of people who’ve come to a sudden end after falling out with Vladmir Putin.

Putin is paying a backhanded compliment to the importance of civil society by suppressing it through every possible means. State-directed murder is the most extreme form of repression, but Putin has many more tricks up his sleeve. One is criminalisation of protests, seen when people showed up at improvised vigils to commemorate Navalny, laying flowers at informal memorials, knowing what would happen. Police arrested hundreds and the flowers quickly vanished.

Protests & vigils after the murder of Alexei Navalny. Ongoing thread. pic.twitter.com/0TnjWjCjWB

— OVD-Info English (@ovdinfo_en) February 16, 2024

An unrelenting assault

Human rights organisation OVD-Info reports that since the start of the full-scale invasion, the authorities have detained 19,855 people at anti-war protests, brought 894 criminal cases against anti-war activists and introduced 51 new repressive laws.

Among many other Russians jailed for symbolic acts of protest, Crimean artist Bohdan Zizu was handed a 15-year sentence last June for spray-painting a building in the colours of the Ukrainian flag. In November, artist Alexandra Skochilenko was sentenced to seven years for placing information about the war on supermarket price tags. Now people helping Ukrainian refugees living in Russia are being criminalised.

The government is also making it impossible for civil society and independent media organisations to keep working. Last August, the authorities declared independent TV channel Dozhd an ‘undesirable organisation’, in effect banning it from operating in Russia and criminalising anyone who shares its content. In August, courts ordered the closure of the Sakharov Center, a human rights organisation. Through similar means the authorities have forced several other organisations out of existence or into exile.

The state has also designated numerous people and organisations as ‘foreign agents’, a classification intended to stigmatise them as associated with espionage. In November, it added the Moscow Times to the list. The government has also doubled down on its attacks on LGBTQI+ people as part of its strategy to inflame narrow nationalist sentiments. And it keeps passing laws to further tighten civic space. Putin recently approved a law that allows the government to confiscate money and other assets from people who criticise the war.

The state is criminalising journalists as well. In March, it detained Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich on spying charges, sending a signal that international journalists aren’t safe. The authorities are also holding Russian-US journalist Alsu Kurmasheva of Radio Free Europe, detained while paying a family visit to Russia. Putin is likely planning to use them as leverage for a prisoner swap. State authorities have put other journalists based outside Russia on wanted lists or charged them in absentia.

Meanwhile, Putin has pardoned real criminals for joining the fight. They include one of the people jailed for organising the 2006 assassination of pioneering investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

It’s hard to hope for any let-up in the crackdown, at least as long as the war lasts. A non-competitive election will approve another term for Putin in March. No credible candidates are allowed to oppose him, and recently an anti-war politician who’d unexpectedly emerged to provide a focus for dissent was banned from standing. Last year the government amended laws to further restrict media coverage of the election, making it very hard to report on electoral fraud.

Weak or strong?

For a time last year Putin seemed weakened when his former ally Yevgeny Prigozhin rebelled, marching his Wagner Group mercenaries on Moscow. The two sides agreed a deal to end the dispute, and sure enough, two months later, Prigozhin died in a suspicious plane crash.

Putin has reasserted his authority. He may be gaining the upper hand in the war. Russia has greater firepower and is largely surviving attempts to isolate it financially, with repressive regimes such as China, India and Turkey picking up the slack in demand for its fossil fuels. It’s turned itself into a Soviet-style war economy, with state spending strongly focused on the military effort, although that can’t be long-term sustainable. Some of the world’s most authoritarian governments – Iran and North Korea – are also supplying weapons.

In comparison, Ukrainian forces are running out of ammunition. Support for Ukraine’s effort has come under greater strain due to political shifts in Europe and the breaking of political consensus in the USA, with Trump-affiliated Republicans working to block further military aid.

Putin may be riding high, but such is the level of state control it’s hard to get an accurate picture of how popular he is, and the election will offer no evidence. Given repression, protest levels may not tell the full story either – but some have still broken out, including those in response to Navalny’s death.

A vital current of dissent has formed around unhappiness with war losses. Last September, an independent poll suggested that support for the war was at a record low. Morale among Russian troops is reportedly poor and deserters have called on others to quit. Families of men serving in the military have held protests demanding the fighting ends.

Protesters have offered other recent moments of opposition. In November, people held a demonstration in Siberia against a local initiative to further restrict protests. In January, in Baymak in southern Russia, hundreds protested at the jailing of an activist. There’s also domestic unhappiness at high inflation.

Moments don’t make a movement, but they can offer inspiration that turns into one, and that often happens unexpectedly. Putin’s story is far from over. As with tyrants before, he’ll likely look invincible until just before he falls.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);