international – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Germany’s Elections

On February 23, 2025, Germany held its federal snap elections, where it sought to reestablish stability in the parliament following the collapse of the previous government coalition. The results triggered global concern as Alternative for Germany (AfD), the country’s far-right party, finished second place, securing roughly 20% of the total vote and 152 parliamentary seats. Though the AfD will likely lack sizable influence within the parliament, unable to form a coalition and secure a majority, its rise in popularity prompts concern due to the party’s extremist ideology and questionable ties with the infamous Nazi Party. This electoral success also warrants discussion due to the impact wealth inequality played in achieving this second-place finish. Furthermore, AfD’s astonishing success aligns with a shift towards conservatism and democratic backsliding throughout Europe and the world.

Image 1: The AfD logo. Source: Yahoo Images

Understanding the Election Results

In a parliamentary system, a party’s presence in government tends to be directly tied to its popularity in an election, with seat allotment being proportional to the percentage of votes received. As Germany’s parliament has 630 seats, holding 316 is necessary to have a majority. However, due to the number of parties, it’s unlikely that one party will achieve over 50% of the vote, resulting in the formation of coalitions to meet this threshold. This method of governing allows more parties to have a voice in the government, therefore being more representative of its constituents; however, it can also lead to gridlock if coalitions cannot be created.

Parliamentary systems reflect the political sentiment of a given time, making the shocking rise in the AfD much more apparent and concerning. The recent election saw the platform nearly double its support from the 2021 election, receiving 152 seats in parliament, totaling 20% of the vote, and granting them a second-place finish. Regardless of its sudden peak in popularity, its vast list of controversies will likely prohibit the party from holding consistent power within parliament, unable to form a coalition, though efforts have been made in the past by moderate parties to work together on stricter immigration policies.

The incumbent party, the Union Parties (CDU/CSU), garnered 28.6% of the vote, which is represented by its share of 208 seats. Though it still finished first, its former coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), saw a dip in support, achieving only 16% of the votes, or 120 seats. Interestingly, this election saw an astonishingly high voter turnout of 82.5%, the highest it has been since the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, highlighting the universal feeling of importance surrounding this election. Similarly, while one in five Germans voted for the AfD, almost 70% of voters view the party as a threat to democracy, implying a huge divide between the group’s supporters and its opposition. Between the high turnout and the division in AfD support, it is clear that many German citizens viewed this to be a critical election.

AfD poster. On the top is the German parliament building. Underneath reads "Our country, our rules" in German over a blue background. — Image 2: An AfD political campaign poster reading “Our Country, Our Rules.” Source: Yahoo Images

AfD Ideology and Actions

The AfD is home to traditionally conservative and undemocratic policies, having questionable ties to Germany’s infamous Nazi Party. Regarding policy, the AfD is largely centered around nationalistic ideals and nativist ideology. Leading up to the 2025 election, AfD party member Alice Weidel declared that, if voted as chancellor, she would support a remigration program, a large-scale, forceful return of immigrants to their native countries. This message was furthered through their use of Nazi-reminiscent advertisements, which exclusively depicted native German people and encouraged heterosexual German couples to have children in the hopes of returning to a true native populace. These advertisements have also been criticized for their advocacy of traditional gender roles and family values and for reinstating the idea of German purity.

However, concerns around the AfD go far beyond policy, as the party has held questionable views regarding the country’s Nazi past. A big objective led by the AfD and its supporters has been to demolish the firewall, a term referring to the open condemnation and banning of Nazi-affiliated slogans, symbols, and gestures. Ending this societal norm would further the party’s aim to place less societal focus on the Holocaust and, in turn, remove structures that punish those who use harmful language. This would benefit AfD leaders: In 2017, an AfD party official was fined for using the Nazi-era phrase “Everything for Germany” during a speech. Later on, this same official called the Berlin Holocaust Memorial a “monument of shame,” arguing that the country needs to completely change how it remembers its past. Similarly, Weidel has referred to Holocaust remembrance as a “cult of shame,” a phrase often used by Holocaust deniers and anti-semites to diminish memorialization efforts.

What is further concerning is that international supporters have supported the party’s mission to distance Germany from its past. In the run-up to the 2025 elections, Elon Musk spoke at an AfD rally where he encouraged the country to end its period of guilt. He told the audience to “be proud of German culture” and not to “lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything.” United States Vice President JD Vance shared a similar sentiment at the Munich Security Council, stating that “there is no room for firewalls” with free speech. Not only have these efforts resulted in a return to Nazi-era rhetoric and rejection of the past, but it has also led to the sharing of misinformation. In an interview with Elon Musk, Weidel touted that Hitler “wasn’t a conservative” and that “he was a communist, socialist guy,” despite his recorded hatred of communism and its supporters. As the party and its supporters –both foreign and domestic– continue to push back against firewall practices, Germany could see a return to the use of Nazi-era rhetoric and blooming ignorance regarding its history, a future that could put the current state of democracy in the country at risk.

The common thread between these policies and ideology is that they all aim to reinstate national pride in German culture at the expense of inclusivity and diversity, which have been fought for since the aftermath of World War II. This allows for the normalization of nativism, along with placing nationalism and conservatism back into the mainstream.

German protestors march carrying a sign that reads "Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi". — Image 3: Protestors declare “Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi.” Source: Yahoo Images

Impacts of Wealth Inequality

A myriad of factors could have contributed to the AfD’s sudden rise, one of which was national wealth inequality, specifically the divide between former East and West Germany. During the reunification of these territories in 1990, East Germany, a former communist society, struggled to adapt to the economy of the West due to its use of outdated technology and reliance on heavy industry. Because of this, many East Germans lacked the necessary training to work in a more modern society, entering this period of unification by losing their jobs and struggling to find new opportunities. The impacts of this are still being felt over 30 years later, as former West Germans on average hold double the amount of wealth as their East German counterparts. This divide is no longer just economic; it is now political. Recent election maps show that AfD was the popular choice in the vast majority of former East German states. This region has also recently helped the party clench its first state-level position in 2024, showing the rapid growth in the AfD over the recent years.

This development is not unique to Germany, as it has been shown that increased wealth inequality positively influences the popularity of right-wing populist ideology. As Equality Trust explains, extreme wealth inequality can lead to an erosion of trust in democratic institutions and politicians, likely influenced by feelings of deprivation and isolation. As inequality rises, these emotions become more commonly felt as populations feel excluded from society, drawing people towards populist parties on both sides of the political spectrum. This would explain why, in the case of Germany, the Left Party also saw an increase in popularity throughout the East. Furthermore, it has been found that a one-unit increase in income inequality almost directly translates to increased support for populist parties. Similarly, a small increase in wealth inequality can have a moderate impact on institutional trust, meaning that even small raises in national wealth disparity can have larger impacts on citizen approval in democratic institutions. This can influence what candidates are chosen and explain why it seems many people are turning towards anti-establishment, nationalistic politicians. While this tendency towards right-wing populism normally occurs when coupled with prior feelings of nationalism and political paranoia, increasing gaps between the wealthy and poorer segments of society can push people to support more extremist right-wing factions. This realization could help explain how the AfD has quickly risen to the mainstream and why such large voting differences occurred between former East and West Germany.

Conclusion

Between the party’s Nazi-reminiscent rhetoric, external pressure to detach from its past atrocities and the modern-day manifestations of long-standing wealth inequality, this rise in the AfD is worth following. Though it is unlikely that the party will hold consistent parliamentary authority, it does risk expanding influence in the future and eroding democratic stability in Germany. This event also follows the global trend towards conservatism and specifically the impact this has had on democratic backsliding within Europe.

The Need of the WHO

On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This, however, was not President Trump’s first time withdrawing from the organization; in July 2020, he signed a similar executive order. However, due to the one-year notice for withdrawal, it never took place, as President Bident revered the order. The withdrawal took place primarily due to the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the “inability to demonstrate independence from the political influence of WHO member states.”

What is the WHO?

The WHO was established in 1948 as a specialized agency of the United Nations, consisting of 194 countries. The main role of the non-governmental organization is to set global health standards; serving as a multilateral organization motivates collaboration between all partner countries to coordinate international health response. This coordination also translates into supporting other partner countries during health crises.

One of the WHO’s roles is gathering and evaluating data from all over the world to understand the current status of health. This data spans regions and represents the holistic health of the world. Through these analyses, acute crises can be addressed in a streamlined way, and larger trends in health can be used as benchmarks to denote progress, ensuring sustained efforts.

Beyond the technical role of the WHO, it helps with on-the-ground support in countries across the world. By working to mobilize vaccines and drugs, individuals from underrepresented or marginalized communities can gain access to life-saving care. Beyond the mobilization of resources, the WHO helps coordinate humanitarian response and volunteers to ensure resources are being used appropriately. The holistic nature of the WHO and the support they provide ensures that countries worldwide are best equipped to support the health and well-being of their citizens.

Photo 1: Photo of WHO Poster in 1988Source: Flickr — Photo 1: Photo of WHO Poster in 1988
Source: Flickr

What has the WHO accomplished?

The WHO has tussled with many different diseases worldwide. For example, the WHO has helped eradicate smallpox worldwide. From leveraging the vaccine developed by Edward Jenner in 1796 to intensifying the vaccine mobilization plan in 1967, smallpox was eradicated by 1980, with the last known natural case in Somalia in 1977. This hallmark success for global health represents the first and only infectious disease ever to be eradicated.

The WHO has contributed to many other successes in the past as well, one being helping reduce polio cases worldwide by 99% since 1988. As of 2022, the number of endemic countries decreased by 123, representing the power of the WHO in reducing the global disease burden.

The visible and less visible responsibilities of the WHO were most recently put on the front stage during the COVID-19 crisis. At the pandemic’s peak, the WHO collected data from across the world to analyze its outcomes and progress made through community health initiatives and vaccine rollouts. Beyond this, the WHO consistently released situational reports, reporting on the research they have collected thus far. Though the incidence of COVID-19 has decreased significantly and is no longer a public health emergency of international concern, the WHO still works to contain the illness and reduce adverse outcomes.

What is the impact of the US withdrawing from the WHO?

The US is one of the largest contributors to the WHO. Supporting around 12%-15% of the budget in the fiscal year 2022-2023, the US has contributed to the investment of millions of jobs, work opportunities, and streamlining functions. Without the US, all of these opportunities will stop in the upcoming fiscal year.

This support is not new to the US. Since World War II, the US has held this top funder spot, serving as a leader in global diplomacy. In an ever-globalized world, this role in the WHO affects our allies and our nation domestically. With this, the international community will suffer and have poorer health; without the investment in life-saving interventions and preventative systems, health is on the line for everyone.

Beyond the tangible impact of the withdrawal, if a decrease in health resilience is observed, there will be an increase in mistrust and a reduction in international cooperation. The withdrawal in both 2020 and 2025 resulted in increased mistrust by partnerships and organizations like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and COVAX, as well as our geopolitical allies. By increasing the vulnerability in our relationships, there is an increased risk of adverse outcomes that will compromise the health of millions worldwide. This distrust may result in the withdrawal of other vital multilateral agreements; demonstrating a lack of cooperation may result in other countries questioning their commitment to the WHO and the overall responsibility to global health.

Beyond the political and financial nuances of the US withdrawing from the WHO, the most tangible impact is the compromise of future pandemic preparedness and the creation of vulnerabilities in the global health landscape. The WHO’s holistic role relies on support to share data and track emerging health threats. Without US support, these threats cannot be effectively analyzed and will result in weakened systems.

What can we learn from the 2025 withdrawal from the WHO?

As it is still early in the year, there is no promise about the legislation’s longevity. However, it reminds us all about the need for bipartisan commitment to global health and development. Not only is this a safeguard to protect our own nation, but it also helps us in terms of international engagement. US foreign policy should prioritize funding for health initiatives regardless of political leadership, working to legislate commitments to our global partners.

With lack of accountability being cited as the primary reason for withdrawal, it is integral for all entities to seek avenues to increase financial transparency and independence without compromising the organization’s day-to-day operations. Collective problem-solving is reinforced by working to advocate for improvements rather than abandoning the WHO.

The temporary absence of the US in the WHO has created a void that has weakened global health cooperation in a matter of weeks. Though the official withdrawal will take around a year to feel the impact, the impact is already being noted in the attitudes and perspectives on the global stage. There is a need to uphold health as a universal human right; developing policies prioritizing equitable healthcare access reinforces the idea that we cannot combat global health alone now without the US; there is a lot of vulnerability in the unknown space.

The Armenian and Azerbaijani Conflict: Attacks in the Nagorno-Karabakh Region

by Caitlin Cerillo

A Long History of Conflict

Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, Armenia and Azerbaijan have held political, economic, and territorial tensions. Prior to this, both countries were considered part of the Soviet Union after its formation in 1922. Nestled between the two countries is a region called Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been at the center of these strong tensions.

This image depicts a destroyed city in Nagorno-Karabakh from the first Armenia and Azerbaijani conflict. — Agdam, a deserted and destroyed city following the first Nagorno-Karabakh war fought between Armenia and Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1994. Source: Yahoo Images

With the region having an Armenian ethnic majority, it established a secessionist movement in 1988 with the goal of becoming part of the Armenian Republic. This movement was challenged on the basis of the Nagorno-Karabakh region geographically belonging to Azerbaijan and control of the area granted by the Soviets to the Azerbaijani government. Pushback against the region’s secessionist movement would lead to the first violent war fought between the two countries. This would result in a ceasefire, with Armenia maintaining territorial control in 1994.

This image depicts a map of the involved countries/regions. Armenia on the left-most side, Azerbaijan on the right-most side, and the Nagorno-Karabakh region in the middle, highlighted in bright red. — Map of the involved countries/regions. Source: Yahoo Images

Tensions Rise Again

Three years ago, the conflict was provoked again, leading to the second Armenian and Azerbaijani War. Once again, these tensions broke out regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Although the first war ended in Armenia’s favor, Azerbaijan claimed victory with the help of its Turkish allies. Similar to the result of the first war, a ceasefire was facilitated by Russia and the two countries. Azerbaijan was promised territorial control of the areas of the Nagorno-Karabakh region it captured in the war, with Armenia agreeing to release control of some areas it previously occupied.

Present-day Attacks in Nagorno-Karabakh

Even today, the conflict has continued to wage on. On December 12, 2022, the Azerbaijani government released troops in the Nagorno-Karabakh region due to a self-proclaimed “anti-terrorist military offensive.” Azerbaijan began by blockading the Lachin corridor, which is the only way Nagorno-Karabakh is connected to Armenia. This blockade weakened the import of food and other resources to the hundreds of thousands living in the region.

Photo of the Lachin Corridor which connects Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. — The Lachin Corridor, which was blockaded in December 2022 by the Azerbaijani government. The Lachin Corridor is the only connecting source between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. Source: Yahoo Images

With the fear of attacks on loved ones and the reality of ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Azerbaijani government, tens of thousands of Armenians have fled to their home country as of September 2023. As defined by the United Nations, ethnic cleansing is the forced removal of an ethnically homogenous group through intimidation tactics and/or coercive practices. These practices can include—but are not limited to—murder, arrest, displacement or deportation, destruction of property, and severe physical injury to civilians.

Just one example of the devastating attacks of the Nagorno-Karabakh region occurred on September 19 in a village called Sarnaghbuyr. Citizens of the region have undergone extremely poor living conditions and food shortages for nine months due to the Lachin corridor blockage. Zarine Ghazaryan, a mother of four, witnessed explosions from Azerbaijan when searching for baby formula for her youngest child, Karen. Zarine was then told that one of her sons, Seyran, was wounded from the attack, and two, Nver and Mikayel, were killed. Nver and Mikayel were only ten and eight, respectively.

Along with the casualties of innocent civilians, many were witnesses to the murder of others. Arman, a fifteen-year-old, was around other children in the village when the attack occurred. He suffered wounds himself along with having to see the horrific sight of other children being killed and wounded. While the Azerbaijani government has asserted that the attacks were strictly for “neutralizing legitimate military targets,” it has left survivors and human rights experts calling the attack indiscriminate or carried out at random with a carelessness towards the safety of others.

The brutal attacks in the Nagorno-Karabakh region have violated several articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights of the lives of innocent civilians of the involved countries, especially those living in the Nagorno-Karabakh region have not been protected. Families who have chosen to flee to Armenia have undergone extreme hardship, with the Armenian border being backed up causing the postponing of the safe arrival of refugees. Human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, have called on the Azerbaijani government for the guarantee of those who have fled Nagorno-Karabakh’s return if they choose to do so. Human Rights Watch has also asserted that the Armenian language, culture, and education must be preserved and protected, without discrimination. Those who choose against returning to the region, should receive monetary reparations and the safe retrieval of any goods or property left after fleeing should be carried out as soon as possible.

Helping Nagorno-Karabakh

There have been several measures taken to help those affected. This includes humanitarian aid in the form of financial assistance, response plans, and more. In 2021, the United Nations created the Armenia Inter-Agency Response Plan. The purpose of this plan was to bring together humanitarian partners who were dedicated to helping the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. The plan outlined the highest priorities of aid and the ways in which the resources could be allocated the most efficiently. Through the Armenia Inter-Agency Response Plan, over 34,000 non-food resources were delivered to the region by UN agencies and over 11,000 school-age children were assisted in their education, among other things. In September 2023, the European Union funded 5 million euro to the Nagorno-Karabakh region, with an additional 4.5 million euro to help the displaced population and those who are still living in the region and vulnerable to violence and hostility.

International Attempts at Transitional Justice

Note from the author: This blog was written to accompany the social justice cafe on Wednesday, November 30th at 4:00 pm on zoom. To join, sign up here. Alongside this event, this post focuses on an international scale while the recent post by Maya Crocker focuses on transitional justice in the United States.

Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end, it is worthwhile, because, in the end, only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Figure 1: Source: Flickr, John Mathew Smith; Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Washington, D.C., 1999.

What is transitional justice?

Transitional justice (TJ) refers to a set of judicial and non-judicial processes addressing previous injustices of authoritarian regimes (or multiple perpetrator groups) and establishing rule of law. Transitional justice has several aims and synthesizes aspects of punitive and restorative justice.

According to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), these aims include:

Providing recognition to victims
Building trust between citizens and state institutions
Reinforcing the rule of law
Committing to human rights and building solidarity with victims
Reconciliation between victims, perpetrators, and bystanders
Preventing new violations

But only characterizing transitional justice through its aims would not highlight the transformative effect this approach attempts in states where massive or systematic violations have occurred. While providing redress to victims and undertaking prosecutorial avenues as practical solutions, this approach also takes a strategic initiative to change the political systems, conflicts, and conditions that contributed to violations occurring in the first place.

This field first emerged in the 1980s and early 90s in response to the drastic political changes in Latin America and East Europe. Human rights advocates and citizens alike questioned how and what kind of redress should occur in the wake of widespread and systematic violence. Fears over disrupting political changes by pursuing indictments of former leaders were salient: how could justice exist without compromising democratization?

Thus, “transitions to democracy” and “justice” intersected and involved multiple processes to be sensitive to these concerns during a critical period in the country.

These processes are:

Criminal Prosecutions: judicial investigations
Truth Commissions: ad hoc commissions of inquiry established in, and authorized by, states for the primary purposes of investigating and reporting on key periods of recent past abuse.
Amnesty: a pardon granted to perpetrators, usually granted to those who comply with truth commissions and offer testimonies
Purges, lustrations, and security reforms: (1) removal of known collaborators of oppression from office and state institutions, (2) process of vetting personnel in state institutions, (3) transformation in state institutions involved in repression, like the military, police, judiciary
Reparations: state-sponsored initiatives that aim at repairing, on a massive scale, the consequences of past abuse experienced by certain classes of victims, including material and symbolic benefits
Gender Justice: focusing on the intersections of human rights abuse and gender during a period of repression, fact-finding initiatives to establish the nature of gendered abuses
Memorialization: museums, memorials, and other means of preserving the public memory of victims and raising moral consciousness about past abuse

Ultimately, TJ is a context-specific process that crucially (and historically) is led by the nation where the violations happened.

Specific attempts at transitional justice: the good and bad

Bolivia:

Days after the restoration to democracy in 1982, the government created the National Commission of Inquiry into Disappearances. No reports or prosecutions were produced. In 1986, prosecutions began against the former military leader, General García Meza, and some of his officers. The trial was not complete until 1993, by which point Meza had gone into hiding to avoid a 30-year sentence for torture and murder. Notably, this court case rejected pardons for those convicted of crimes against humanity.

Uruguay:

After a 12-year military rule in 1985, the new government avoided truth commissions. Instead, President Sanguinetti issued a pardon (1986) to all soldiers and officers of the previous regime, with no distinction as to those who followed orders and those who gave them. He claimed this was the ‘safest path’ but ‘not a moral decision,’ highlighting that TJ attempts are not pursued in every situation. This is often a result of corruption and officials often rely on a dialogue of ‘national reconciliation by granting large amnesties but failing to pursue any other TJ processes, essentially dismissing victims’ realities. Victims were denied any form of reparation and violators remain in high office in the police and military. An official Commission for Peace was established in 2000 under President Jorge Batlle with the official report released in April 2003 confirming that the military dictatorship was involved in some of the disappearances.

Chile:

This history of Chile’s dictatorship and eventual prosecutorial redress can be read about in my next blog. Part of the reason for the near-decade gap between the restoration of democracy (1990) and Pinochet’s arrest (1998) was due to Pinochet’s change of the constitution during military rule. Not only did he pardon himself and his torturers in 1978, but he enshrined legal protections from purges and lustration attempts. Nonetheless, Chile has engaged in memorialization and reparations in the cases of successful prosecution of former DINA police.

El Salvador:

A Commission on the Truth of El Salvador was established in 1991, led by three international jurists and staffed and financed by the United Nations. While only fully investigating 33 disappearances out of the reported 22,000, the commission did identify 40 individuals connected to the armed forces and involved in crimes against humanity. Additionally, the Commission was able to confirm the El Mozote massacre, where nearly 1,000 villagers were killed by US-trained and equipped Salvadoran army members. The Commission also called on the Supreme Court to retire, which they declined. René Ponce was named general and ordered the execution of 6 Jesuit priests (one the then head of the Human Rights Institute). Due to Ponce’s involvement in the peace negotiations and settlement with FMLN, his prosecution was never attempted. The report from the truth commission was rejected and the then-president offered a blanket amnesty for all political crimes which the Supreme Court upheld (1995). After 20 years, no other transitional justice attempts have been implemented.

Haiti:

Haiti suffered massive human rights violations under the Duvalier reign between 1957 to 1986. Over 40,000 Haitians were killed and it wasn’t until 1990 that democracy was established with the election of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Soon after, he was ousted by General Raoul Cedras, showing just how volatile transitions toward democracy can be. Under Cedras, hundreds were killed by the paramilitary group Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH), funded in part by the CIA. Democracy was restored in 1994 and power returned to Aristide but at the cost of blanket amnesty for all rapes, murders, and political killings. He went on to establish a National Commission for Truth and Justice which in February 1996 urged for the prosecution of individuals who committed crimes against humanity by an international tribunal. There has been no tribunal and no prosecutions, and to this day impunity is chronic.

Argentina:

Spray painted image of a general with crossed-out eyes on a wall. The words “More than 30,000 reasons for popular justice. Never again look the other way" are painted beside the images. — Figure 2: Source: Yahoo Images, Colin Snider; Graffiti of General Jorge Videla with the phrases “More than 30,000 reasons for popular justice. Never again look the other way.”

Argentina took the most extensive approach of the states discussed so far. In 1983 after the defeat of the military in the Falklands Wars, President Raoul Alfonsín annulled the amnesty the military had given themselves. He also set up the Commission on the Disappeared which produced the report Nunca Más (Never Again) which was a national bestseller – fulfilling some forms of memorialization. The evidence the commission gathered was used to prosecute 5 of the most senior members of the military junta, but when indictments began on less senior officers the military revolted in 1987. Trials ceased to end the conflict but Alfonsín refused to give any pardons. His successor Carlos Menem was the one to pardon ex-president Videla and others on grounds of “national reconciliation.” In spite of Menem’s undermining, human rights groups and families of the disappeared renewed the vigor for criminal accountability in 2003, and as of 2010, more than 800 face criminal charges and 200 have been sentenced.

South Africa:

When one thinks of “truth and reconciliation” or “truth commissions,” the most likely example to come to mind is South Africa. After the end of apartheid (a crime against humanity) in 1994, the new democratic government formed the unique tripartite Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). It had three responsibilities: (1) record the apartheid era for memory, (2) make recommendations for reparations, and (3) grant amnesty to individuals based on application and only in limited circumstances.

This was a revolutionary step for transitional justice and helped citizens come to terms with the violent and discriminatory apartheid. In spite of the success of this TRC, no prosecutions have ever been mounted and organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International fear the TRC suggestions are not being fully implemented.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that the commission was chaired by none other than Archbishop Desmond Tutu whose ceaseless human rights efforts have helped define the role of TRCs as both forward and backward-looking. In his words, “True reconciliation is never cheap, for it is based on forgiveness which is costly. Forgiveness in turn depends on repentance, which has to be based on an acknowledgment of what was done wrong, and therefore on disclosure of the truth. You cannot forgive what you do not know.”

United States:

For an in-depth examination of the transitional justice movement in the United States, please read Maya Crocker’s blog here.

Conclusion

Without addressing the seeds which sprouted violence, the threat of their reoccurrence cannot be escaped. This means acknowledgment, and hardest of all, forgiveness. While a generation suffered, hatred should not be allowed to pass down and threaten long-lasting peace.

This is not easy, but if you believe in human rights, affirming the realities of victims and perpetrators and all those in between is crucial. As Desmond Tutu says, “We must not only speak about forgiveness and reconciliation, we must act on these principles.”

This post draws a lot of information from the book Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice by Geoffrey Robertson, originally published in 1999 with multiple editions given the continuous development of human rights. I will be utilizing information from a 1999 edition, and thus, certain information on the results of transitional justice attempts will have developed more in the last two decades. If you are interested in obtaining a copy for yourself, the latest edition was updated in 2013 and includes additional sections on Iraq, Guantanamo, the Obama administration’s use of drone warfare, the Charles Taylor conviction, and the trials of Mladic, Karadzic, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

A book cover, there is no background, only a bold white title against black. — Figure 3: Source: Target; Cover of the aforementioned book.

Geoffery Robertson is an internationally acclaimed lawyer and human rights advocate who has served as a UN war crimes judge and founded Doughty Street Chambers in London, a leading human rights law practice. In his book, he deconstructs international human rights law, beginning with the foundational philosophy of rights dialogue (natural rights, social contract, Enlightenment) and moving through the defining events of 20th-century human rights law formation. His book is written in a non-legalese, prose-like style and is a strong starting point for learning a breadth of information about the very complex processes behind prosecutions (and more often why they don’t happen).

If this interests you, read Robertson’s book or check out more blogs from IHR below:

What is the International Criminal Court and Why Should I Care?
The Age of Human Rights?
Relativism’s Implications on Universal Human Rights
A Bright Future – Recent Human Rights Victories
Justice(s) for Crimes Against Humanity: The Uyghur Muslims in China
Covenants Without the Sword: International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Sexual Violence

Pakistan’s Floods : A Humanitarian and Climate Crisis

One third of Pakistan is underwater following disaster-level floods that have ravaged the country since mid June of 2022. The flooding is a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, bringing climate change and environmental justice into the focus of conversations about why the floods are so devastating. The record-breaking monsoon rains have affected 33 million citizens, leaving millions displaced and threatening the economy by washing away the fall harvest and essential farmland. Pakistan’s most vulnerable are struggling to access the scarce aid that is available, including the 19 million children affected by the floods. It is an unprecedented, once in a century crisis event exacerbated by climate change, poor infrastructure, and the damages of the recent economic crisis prior to the flooding.

Direct Impact of the Floods: Hunger, Disease and Displacement.

The monsoon rains have killed over a thousand people, roughly 400 of which are children. However, hunger, thirst, disease, and shortages of essential supplies threaten the lives of even more; millions of Pakistani people have been displaced over the course of the floods since June. The United Nations Refugee Agency has estimated that 6.4 million people are in need of immediate support.

Any discussion of rebuilding has been shelved in submerged regions as the flood waters may not recede for months, leaving the thousands of kilometers of roads, tens of thousands of schools, hundreds of thousands of homes, thousands of essential healthcare facilities destroyed by floodwater, and prior residents stranded or displaced. In addition to the initial death toll from the floods, the Pakistani people are facing immediate dangers of water borne disease, lack of access to food, water and shelter, and risks of violence; especially for women, children, and minority groups.

The country’s health system has faced substantial blows, both from loss of structures and supplies caused by the flood and the overwhelming need of those affected. Dehydration, dysentery, cholera, malaria, and dengue fever are ravaging make-shift camps as the flood waters become stagnant and clean water and sanitary supplies become harder to come by. Sindh Province, the second-most populated province in Pakistan, and one of the hardest-hit by the floods, has seen over 300 deaths from water borne-diseases since July. Early disease surveillance by the WHO has revealed that tens of thousands of cases of flood water-caused diseases are already present amongst those within reach of relief efforts. Countless villages remain stranded as roads and highways are underwater, so the true number of deaths, displaced persons, diseased, and persons otherwise impacted by these crises are expected to climb as more recovery efforts continue to search the flooded regions.

Without international aid and intervention, an epidemic of disease caused by the floods will cause a second wave of deaths in Pakistan, of which the elderly, children, and pregnant women will be the largest groups facing losses. International aid, medical and humanitarian organizations have joined the Pakistani government and are regularly dropping medical supplies, malaria nets, food and provisional shelters, but the need continues to grow as more people find their way to temporary camps and the rate of disease climbs.

Human Rights & The Most Vulnerable

A nation’s most vulnerable populations are often the ones who suffer the worst effects for the longest time after a natural disaster like these floods. For Pakistan, those vulnerable groups are women, children, the Khwaja Sira (transgender) community, those living in extreme poverty, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups. Typically, socially disadvantaged groups are living in regions with lesser infrastructure, facing the initial worst impacts of natural disasters, but marginalized status often leads to upwards battles to access humanitarian aid after the disaster as well. There are estimated to be 650,000 pregnant women displaced in Pakistan right now, in urgent need of maternal health care and safe, sterile facilities to give birth in, with many taking perilous journeys in hopes of reaching a hospital or safe places to give birth.

CARE, an international human rights and social justice organization, spoke on this concern. Pakistan Country Director for CARE, Adil Sheraz said, “With entire villages washed away, families broken up and many people sleeping under the sky, the usual social structures that keep people safe have fallen away, and this can be very dangerous for women and girls.” 

Following the 2010 floods in Pakistan, denial of aid and violence against minorities became a prevalent issue and large protests against law enforcement arose due to their failure to protect vulnerable groups. Preventative measures against recurrence of these issues have been few and far between since 2010, and international human rights communities are on high alert for rising reports of discrimination in relief distribution and crimes against minorities. Reports of sexual violence have already increased following the floods.

In addition to some of the most vulnerable Pakistanis are roughly 800,000 Afghani refugees who have been hosted by Pakistan in Sindh and Balochistan; two provinces faced with the worst of the flooding and submersion. Pakistan has a deep history of offering asylum and refuge for those fleeing across the border from conflict in Afghanistan, and is home to 1.4 million Afghani refugees currently in 2022. Following the August 2021 withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate government (also known as the Taliban), Pakistan became an even more essential haven for the influx of refugees fleeing a violent authoritarian regime. In the wake of this natural disaster, the loss of $30 billion dollars worth of infrastructure, homes and supplies, and facing an economic crisis, Afghani people with hopes of finding refuge in Pakistan must now find new routes to safety.

Environmental Justice & Climate Change

Though Pakistan faces annual flooding of the Indus river from heavy rains in monsoon season, record breaking rains preceded by an extended heatwave contributed to an unrivaled degree of flooding this summer. Heatwaves brought temperatures around 50° Celsius (122° Fahrenheit) to India and Pakistan between March and May of this year. Monsoon rains followed the spring heatwaves, and in the regions of Sindh and Balochistan rainfall reached 500% above average. The 2022 floods will leave a significant economic, infrastructural, and humanitarian impact on the country of roughly 220 million people. The reason for the dramatic influx in severity is complex, but simple at its core: climate change.

Pakistan is facing an unfair share of the consequences of climate change; while it was responsible for only .3% of global CO2 emissions in 2020, it is likely that this year’s heatwaves and floods will be on the less severe end of what is to come. The United Nations has deemed Pakistan a “climate change hotspot”, stating that people in South Asia are 15 times more likely to die from climate impacts. As the global temperature rises and geohazards become more extreme, disaster-prone regions like Pakistan will face more and more devastation. The best prognosis for the region comes with prevention efforts like strengthening anti-disaster infrastructures. As the global north is responsible for 92% of excess emissions contributing to global warming and climate change, Pakistan, the United Nations, and other international agencies are calling for countries like the United States to make increased contributions to relief funds and infrastructure development overseas.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, while visiting Pakistan in September 2022, said, “…the fact is that we are already living in a world where climate change is acting in such a devastating way. So, there must be massive support to what usually is called adaptation, which means to build resilient infrastructure and to support resilient communities and to create conditions for those that are in the hotspots of climate change. Pakistan is one of the hotspots of climate change. For those countries to be able to prepare for the next disaster and to be able to resist the next disaster, this needs a huge investment and this investment needs to be provided.”

Relief & Aid

Pakistan has faced an overwhelming series of calamities since the start of this year, and the impacts from these disasters are greatly exacerbated by food shortages and an economic crisis prior to the start of the disasters in March. There are millions of people in need of aid, and every bit of support helps. If you are unable to financially contribute, please consider sharing this or other articles about this crisis to increase international attention on those who need our help.

For donations of money, time, or other resources, we have compiled some reputable aid agencies below:

Pakistan’s Red Crescent Society is providing clean drinking water, medical treatments, temporary housing, and other essential aid across flood-hit regions. Donate or get involved with their flood response efforts here.
The United Nations Refugee Agency has provided millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, and you can contribute here to support their continued relief efforts.
The International Medical Corps are on the ground in Pakistan, providing medical care and responses to both the floods and gender-based violence across the country. Find out more & how you can donate here.
Muslim Aid has reached over 29,000 people in three affected districts of Pakistan, providing hygiene kits, shelter, and essentials to those in need. Contribute to their fund here.

The Death Penalty is Inhumane

One of the best things that my 12th grade high school teacher encouraged me to do was to read and watch Just Mercy, a book written by Bryan Stevenson and a film directed by Destin Daniel Cretton. Both the film and book allowed me to greater understand the importance of confronting injustice, while also standing up for those wrongly convicted.

In the United States, about 43% of all executions have involved people of color, 55% currently awaiting the death penalty, all while only accounting for 27% of the general population. When comparing defendants, one fact to note is that “as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims.” According to the ACLU, “a system racial bias in the application of the death penalty exists at both the state and federal level.”

But what exactly is the death penalty? What are the different forms of capital punishment and arguments for and against them?

What exactly is capital punishment?

Britannica defines capital punishment as the “execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense,” meaning that this type of punishment would be reserved for the most dangerous of criminals.

The death penalty has been present in societies for hundreds of centuries, dating all the way back to before the establishment of Hammurabi’s Code in 18th century BC. Hammurabi’s Code laid the foundation of the death penalty for 25 different crimes; placing emphasis on theft between two groups of people. Hammurabi’s Code also established punishment as equal to the crime committed, as known from historical references as “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” These types of punishments were often cruel and included crucifixion, burial alive, impalement, and others.

Notable forms of Capital Punishment throughout History and Today

The Guillotine

The Guillotine, one of the older methods of execution, was introduced in France in 1792. This device fixes the head between two logs with a heavily weighted knife suspended a couple of feet in the air. This method of execution was introduced to make the process of execution “by means of a machine,” making it “as painless as possible.”

Notable figures executed by means of the guillotine as King Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette for crimes against the French people.

Hanging

Carried out in countries in Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East, hanging is defined as suspending someone in the air as a form of execution. Death either occurs through decapitation or through strangulation, depending on the length of the rope compared to the weight of the prisoner.

Lethal Injection

Lethal Injection consists of an anesthetic alongside chemicals used to paralyze the prisoner and stop the heart. This form of punishment exists in China and Vietnam.

Surprisingly, the United States also uses the lethal injection, with the most recent execution taking place on September 24th, 2020. “Christopher Vialva was sentenced to death for the 1999 murders of Todd and Stacie Bagley.” Vialva’s execution was the 1,526th in the United States since 1976, 10th in the federal system, and the 1,346th person executed by means of lethal injection.

Although the injection is designed to kill ‘quickly’ and ‘smoothly,’ inexperience on the part of prison staff has flawed the execution process. One case in particular is that of Dennis McGuire. Reports show that after the injection was administered to Dennis McGuire, he gasped and convulsed for 10 minutes; much longer than the time that previous injections have taken to execute someone, before dying.

Electrocution

Execution by electrocution occurs when a prisoner is strapped to an electric char with a “metal skullcap-shaped electrode” attached to their scalp or forehead. Following these actions, the prisoner receives a jolt of electricity up to 2000 volts for up t o30 seconds, until the prisoner is dead.

Electrocution is a method of execution carried out in the United States, with the first electrocution taking place at Auburn Prison in New York against someone who was convicted of murdering “with an axe.”

Why the Continuation of the Death Penalty Creates a Gray Area

Today, “more than 70% of the world’s countries have abolished capital punishment.” Countries today that still have the death penalty range from countries with large populations under authoritarian rule, with the United States being the outlier as the only democracy with it in place.

An image of the world map highlighting countries that have abolished and retained the death penalty as of 2006. — Death Penalty Laws Over The World 2006.

According to the Embassy of the United States of America, capital punishment still exists due to the inability of the federal government to dictate laws to the states. Although the United States has been one of the foremost leaders in reforming capital punishment, other countries have had an easier time in abolishing it by “national governments imposing top-down reform because they decided the death penalty was no longer necessary or legitimate.” And since the Constitution allocates criminal law to the states, only they can repeal their own capital punishment laws. The Supreme Court is the only national-level body capable of declaring capital punishment unconstitutional.

Around the world, many consider implementing the death penalty a violation of human rights, especially those that require states to recognize the right to life, as shown through Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Life is a Human Right.” Although intended to curb violent crimes and atrocities committed by criminals, the loss of life through the death penalty violates “the right of life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” which the death penalty unfortunately promotes.

Although many international organizations and countries have abolished the death penalty, like many countries of the Global North save the United States, a case can arise where the death penalty is justified, shown through Bangladesh’s approval of the death penalty for rape. With a viral video showing a group of men sexually assaulting a woman, Bangladesh’s cabinet quickly approved “to incorporate the death penalty for all of the four types of rape defined under Bangladeshi law.” Though detracting from the real problem, that rapists are normal people and not animals, the passage of the death penalty seems just, since there has been a violent outrage at the lack of enforcement on sexual violence in this part of the world.

Moral arguments for the death penalty put quite simply, is the concept of retribution, where the killing of one person justifies the death of the killer. However, opponents of this notion would counteract that point with the fact that issuing capital punishment detracts from the moral message it conveys, alongside the fact that it is fundamentally inhumane.

Despite these arguments, the inhumane action that is the death penalty cannot go unchecked. With the death of Dennis McGuire, for instance, these processes are not clean and fraught with mistakes leading to the disgusting and horrific death of inmates.

“The death penalty has no place in the 21st century” – António Guterres

Overall, the “death penalty is not a useful instrument for combating crime.” Abolishing the death penalty in the United States can allow other countries to ensure the right to life for all people, while also ensuring that the absolute worst of punishments cannot be enforced differently based on a person’s status, color, race, or underlying distinctions.

“The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.” – Amnesty International