Forty-eight Uyghur men have been held in detention facilities throughout Thailand for more than ten years. Trapped in a diplomatic limbo that perfectly captures the clash of international politics, human rights violations, and the suffering of an oppressed minority. These men, who are members of a Muslim ethnic group from China’s Xinjiang province that speaks Turkic, left their country in search of safety from systemic persecution. But rather than escaping to safety, they now risk being forcibly deported back to a government notorious for its cruel treatment of Uyghurs.
Image 1: 150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Source: Claudia Himmelreich, Creative Commons
Who Are the Uyghurs?
The northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang is home to the Uyghurs, who are an ethnic minority whose population is predominately Muslim. International human rights organizations have repeatedly reported serious violations in Xinjiang, such as forced labor, mass detentions, cultural erasure, and even accusations of genocide. The so-called “re-education camps” in China have imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs and subjected them to psychological abuse, forced sterilization, and indoctrination.
When Thai authorities forced the captives to sign “voluntary return” forms in January 2025, their situation worsened. In a desperate protest against their protracted incarceration and impending deportation, the Uyghurs refused to comply and on January 10 began a hunger strike.
Fears of Refoulement
Human rights organizations are incensed by the idea of sending these men to China. The cornerstone of international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement, would be broken by such acts, according to Human Rights Watch and other groups. Countries are not allowed to send people back to places where they risk threats of torture, cruel treatment, or persecution under the principle of non-refoulement.
A larger battle to achieve a balance between national policies, international commitments, and geopolitical influences is seen in Thailand’s treatment of the Uyghur captives. Thailand has historically refrained from ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention due to worries about illegal immigration and sovereignty, and the nation’s dependence on Chinese commerce and investment makes it more difficult for it to stand firmly against Beijing.
Despite widespread outrage, Thailand deported 109 Uyghurs to China in 2015. Chinese state media aired videos of deportees arriving in shackles and clearly distressed. The incident showed the impact of China’s global reach while also drawing harsh criticism from the UN and other international organizations.
Image 2: Child’s play – Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China. Source: Sherpas 428, Creative Commons
Hunger Strike
The severe physical and psychological effects of indefinite incarceration are brought to light by the ongoing hunger strike. Hunger strikes, which represent the captives’ desperation, have long been used as a nonviolent protest tactic. Prolonged hunger strikes can cause organ failure, permanent health problems, and even death, according to medical professionals. However, for many Uyghurs, the risks of being detained or deported forcibly are greater than the risks of protesting.
The plight of Thailand’s Uyghur prisoners has drawn attention from throughout the world. Foreign governments and advocacy organizations have called on Thailand to free the inmates and give them safe transportation to third countries that are prepared to take them in. Turkey is still a possible destination because of its sizable Uyghur diaspora. These attempts are complicated, however, given political tensions between Beijing and Ankara.
International human rights standards are being broken by Thailand’s ongoing detention of the Uyghurs. Even though Thailand is not a member to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR has reminded it of its duties under customary international law to prevent refoulement.
Broader Implications
Thailand’s Uyghur crisis is not an isolated event; rather, it is a part of a wider trend of Southeast Asian nations facing refugee challenges. Regarding their handling of Uyghur asylum seekers, Malaysia and Indonesia have also come under fire, frequently pointing to Chinese diplomatic pressure and domestic security concerns.
Furthermore, Thailand’s actions established a concerning precedent. Global human rights frameworks are weakened if strong countries like China can apply enough pressure to compel weaker states to violate international rules. It also calls into question how international organizations hold nations responsible.
A Path Forward
The ongoing crisis calls for immediate action to protect the rights and lives of the detained Uyghurs. Here are some thoughts on how they should proceed:
Release and Resettlement: Thailand should release the detainees and work with international organizations to facilitate their resettlement in third countries willing to accept them, such as Turkey or Canada.
Strengthened Legal Protections: Thailand should consider ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, thereby aligning its policies with international human rights standards.
Increased International Pressure: The global community, particularly Western nations, should intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent deportations and ensure the detainees’ safety.
Monitoring and Transparency: Independent observers should be granted access to monitor the conditions of Uyghur detainees in Thailand to ensure compliance with human rights norms.
Addressing Root Causes: The international community needs to hold China accountable for its actions in Xinjiang, addressing the root causes that force Uyghurs to flee their homeland.
Looking Ahead
The situation of the forty-eight Uyghur men who are being held captive in Thailand serves as an alarming example of the human cost of international indifference and geopolitical scheming. Unless Thailand and the international world step in, these people, who escaped unspeakable oppression, now face a bleak future. Respecting the values of refugee protection and human rights is not only a moral obligation but also a test of our shared humanity.
There is, nevertheless, hope for a solution that puts human rights and international collaboration first, even though the situation is still grave. Thailand can establish a standard for treating refugees humanely and solidify its standing as a responsible global actor if it takes the appropriate actions. The future of the Uyghur captives is in jeopardy, but a fair resolution is hopefully achievable with enough advocacy.
Greenland, home to the world’s second-largest ice sheet, is rapidly losing its ice. This isn’t just a faraway problem for scientists to worry about—it’s a global issue that affects all of us. But why is this happening, and what does it mean? Let’s break it down.
Image 1: The snowless, changing landscape of Greenland. Source: Yahoo Images.
Why Is Greenland’s Ice Melting?
Greenland’s ice sheet covers about 80% of the country. It’s so big that if it melted completely, sea levels around the world would rise by about 7.4 meters (24 feet). Over the last few decades, temperatures in the Arctic have been rising twice as fast as the global average. Warmer air melts the ice from above, while warmer ocean water melts it from below. These processes are speeding up, causing Greenland to lose billions of tons of ice yearly.
One key concept in understanding the melting ice is albedo. Albedo is a measure of how much sunlight a surface reflects. Think about it this way:
Ice and snow are bright and white, reflecting most sunlight back into space and cooling the planet.
Darker surfaces like ocean water or bare ground absorb more sunlight, causing them to heat up.
Image 2: The merciless albedo feedback loop. Source: Yahoo Images.
The formation of an ice sheet isn’t random; it depends on Earth’s geography and climate. The movement of Earth’s continents, known as continental drift, plays a key role in ice sheet formation. Continents near the poles (like Greenland and Antarctica) are ideal because they receive less sunlight, creating cooler conditions.The most essential requirement for an ice sheet to grow is cool summer temperatures. Snow that falls during winter must not melt entirely during the summer. Instead, it compacts and builds up over thousands of years, forming thick layers of ice.
Rising Sea Levels. When ice sheets melt, water flows into the ocean, significantly elevating sea levels. This poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide, putting them at risk of flooding and erosion.
Disrupted Ocean Currents. Melting ice adds massive amounts of freshwater to the salty ocean, disrupting critical ocean currents like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which helps regulate the Earth’s climate. If these currents slow down, they could lead to more extreme weather patterns, such as harsher winters in some places and stronger hurricanes in others.
More Greenhouse Gases. Melting ice can release trapped greenhouse gases, like methane, from the frozen ground beneath it (called permafrost). These gases contribute to further warming, making the problem even worse.
The melting of Greenland’s ice sheet is not just an environmental issue—it’s a human rights issue. Climate change, driven by the loss of ice sheets and rising global temperatures, threatens people’s right to life, health, food, water, and security. Communities around the world, particularly those in coastal and marginalized areas, are already experiencing the devastating consequences.
The United Nations recognizes climate change as a human rights issue because it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. As the ice melts, coastal communities are being swallowed by the sea. Small island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives are at risk of disappearing. Millions of people in low-lying regions (Bangladesh, Florida, Louisiana) could be displaced, creating climate refugees who have nowhere to go.
Even with ambitious climate change policies like the Paris Agreement, sea levels are projected to rise between 20 to 60 cm (7.8 to 23.6 inches) by 2100. This rise poses a significant threat to coastal communities, as up to 216 million people (2.6% of the earth’s population) currently live on land that will be below sea level or experience regular flooding by the end of the century.
Greenhouse gases trap heat and keep the planet warm. The most common are carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ozone (O3), and water. Without them, Earth would be too cold for humans and most life to survive, but with too much, we are slowly roasting the planet. This raises an ethical dilemma: Are we morally obligated to rehome climate refugees? If giving up air conditioning could save thousands of lives, should people’s basic needs for food and shelter outweigh our desire for convenience?
Wealthy countries and corporations have contributed the most to climate change, yet poorer nations are more likely to bear the brunt of the damage. Those with fewer resources—marginalized communities, Indigenous groups, and low-income families—struggle the most to adapt and recover.
The biggest contributors to global emissions are China, the United States, and India, together responsible for 42.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. alone accounts for 13.5% of global emissions, making it the world’s second-largest carbon emitter. If the U.S. is responsible for 13.5% of lost islander homes, should we also be 13.5% responsible for their survival? Should we take action even if no other country accepts accountability? Even if it requires more than what we are “technically” obligated to do?
Image 4: The melting ice caps. Source: Yahoo Images.
What Can We Do?
The good news is that there are solutions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most essential step. This means using cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, improving energy efficiency, and protecting forests. On an individual level, even small actions make a difference—using less energy, advocating for climate policies, and spreading awareness. One of the most powerful things you can do is start a conversation. Simply talking about climate change can introduce new ideas and inspire action.
Greenland’s melting ice may seem far away, but its impact is a stark reminder that we are all connected. If we act now, we can protect our planet and future generations. The question is not whether we can make a difference but whether we will.
The human rights violations noted against Sub-Saharan African migrants have been increasing exponentially across North Africa, specifically in Tunisia. Tunisia is a transit country for many migrants to reach Europe, being the most significant departure point for migrants crossing the Mediterranean; the physical actions against migrants and the political bias have inherently made it difficult for many different communities to continue their journey.
History of Sub-Saharan Immigration
Photo 1: Photo of a refugee camp. Source: Flickr
For hundreds of years, people have migrated from Sub-Saharan Africa to Northern Africa; in 2020, it was estimated that 61 percent of migrants into North Africa were from Africa. Tunisia has been a key destination because it is relatively stable both socioeconomically and politically. Irregular migration into the country has been pertinent since the early 1990s. However, a surge in migration was observed in 2011, when over 27,000 migrants were intercepted in Tunisia with plans to continue to Europe. A similar spike was noted in early 2020, with over 35,000 migrants intercepted when departing from the country. These values tell the story of those who were intercepted by the government and do not account for those who weren’t able to complete their journey beyond Tunisia.
Largely, migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa are males who have taken the step into a new journey to hopefully promise a better life for their families; these individuals are quite young, being anywhere from 18 to 35 years old. Generally, there are varying reasons why people migrate to Tunisia; data collected in 2018 suggests that 52% of migrants emigrated for economic reasons, 22 percent migrated to study, and 25 percent are potential victims of human trafficking. All of these come via different routes; though land routes are quite popular, an overwhelming majority of migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa come by air travel, leveraging visa-on-arrival opportunities. As these are often three-month tourist visas, many overstay the visa to work in different fields ranging from tourism to hospitality to construction. Beyond those visas, other avenues are explored by migrants to enter Tunisia; one is that of human-smuggling networks. These networks are oftentimes characterized by two-fold movements: into Tunisia via land and then outside of Tunisia via maritime routes. For those without passports, many individuals pay hundreds of dollars to get to North Africa.
Drivers of Migration
When faced with difficulties, many people seek out-migration as an avenue to explore. One reason why migration into Tunisia has increased is economic burdens. The World Bank has estimated that youth unemployment in Sub-Saharan Africa is around 10.2 percent. This has resulted in many youths moving to North Africa to seek out new opportunities.
Another factor is environmental factors. With increased burdens associated with climate change, such as increased temperatures and deteriorating soil quality, it is observed as a driver, as well. By 2025, Sub-Saharan Africa could see as many as 86 million climate migrants; though this number is represented by a value of internal and external migration, this has been a force that has impacted current migration patterns into Tunisia.
Photo 2: Photo of refugees at Tunisian-Libyan border. Source: Flickr
Domestic Concerns
To respond to the increased migration, the Tunisian government has had a unique role in the development of action. While Tunisia has been vocal about human rights and has demonstrated international support, the application of their signatures often falls short.
Raids and arrests, outlining attacks against human rights, have been increasing significantly. This, coupled with improper immigration-specialized facilities, has resulted in many people not being treated fairly. These centers have not met international standards, according to international observers like OMCT (World Organization Against Torture), due to inadequate sanitary conditions and poor infrastructure. To respond to these abuses and oversight, the government of Tunisia established the National Authority for the Prevention of Torture, which has unfortunately faced limited access to detention centers, further allowing continuous attacks against the human rights of those in detainment.
Human Right Abuses
Different abuses have been noted against Sub-Saharan migrants in Tunisia. Physical violence has been most prominent during arrests, raids, and detainment. Over 85 percent of Black Africans had reported violence from these security forces. These abuses have been conducted by police, the National Guard, and many other entities.
Medical abuse is also quite prominent as well, especially for those in detention facilities. Many migrants are uneducated about the nuances of Tunisian healthcare in the country and their access rights. This results in inaccurate information being more accessible than a healthcare professional. Within the conversation of accessing healthcare, there is a unique level of pressure put on female migrants; though there are not as many women who migrate to Tunisia, those who do face challenges ranging from building rapport with the health system, accessing insurance information for prenatal care, and navigating social implications of feminine care.
Mental health is also a huge issue for many migrants in Tunisia; an overwhelming 47 percent of migrants experience depression, 10 percent experience adaptation stress, and 9 percent experience PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). These, coupled with the general stress of migration and the expectation to reach Europe, can have overwhelming effects on their mental health. Without the resources necessary to treat it, they are left even more vulnerable than when they came.
Economic exploitation is another abuse noted against Sub-Saharan African Migrants in Tunisia. 35% of migrant workers experience poor working conditions, many of whom eventually change jobs for a plethora of reasons ranging from exploitation, which is the most frequent incident, to violence to harassment. As many of these workers participate in the informal economy, as young people generally make up 32 percent of the informal sector, they are not equally as protected compared to those who are in the formal sector.
When looking at the abuses against communities, it is integral that international communities advocate against these injustices and work to support vulnerable communities like migrant ones. Without checks and balances, support is limited for these communities, allowing systematic discrimination to take precedence.
Throughout the past decade, the European Union (EU) has seen a rapid influx of refugees entering its countries as people flee violence, war, and persecution. Though this number peaked in 2015, a notable amount of migrants have continued to enter Europe, with roughly 385,000 seeking safety in European countries throughout 2023 alone. While irregular border crossings make up a small percentage of total immigration, concerns surrounding asylum-seekers and migrants have risen throughout the EU and have become highly politicized topics. Today, many countries in the region argue for strict border protections and harsher policies to be implemented into the union.
Being a coastal nation, Italy claims it has received a greater burden than other EU countries have, taking in over one million migrants since 2013. To counter this, Italy has recently entered into a deal with Albania, hoping to minimize immigration numbers. This agreement, pushed forward by Italy’s anti-immigration prime minister Giorgia Meloni, allows Italy to build and manage immigration detention centers within Albania’s borders and promises quicker screening of asylum claims. Albania will only receive those from “safe” countries, or nations the agreement deems free from violence and persecution; those seeking refuge from countries outside this list will continue to have their claims heard in Italy. While many argue that this system is an innovative solution to the question of immigration throughout the European Union, these decisions have been criticized by human rights advocates and Italy’s own judicial branch and raise concerns surrounding the treatment of asylum-seekers on a global scale.
Image 1: Migrants sit on the Italian coast. Source: Yahoo Images
What is the Italy-Albania Agreement on Migration?
The Italy-Albania migration deal, finalized earlier this year and set into force in October, is an agreement between the two countries and is meant to reduce the number of immigrants entering Italy. Under this program, male asylum-seekers from predetermined “safe” countries found outside the European Union’s territorial waters are transferred to detention centers in Albanian cities. At these centers, detained migrants will experience expedited screenings, receiving their claim results in 28 days or less, with each person’s claim being reviewed by special courts. Based on the verdict, those granted asylum will be transferred to Italy, and those whose claims are rejected will be repatriated or sent back to their home country. Women, children, and vulnerable groups will be immediately sent to Italy, and it is promised that families will not be separated.
This project is set to last for five years, process 36,000 claims annually, and have a total cost of 670 million euros, or $729 million. Albanian detention facilities will fall entirely under Italian jurisdiction and be fully staffed by Italian citizens, obligating these centers to remain compliant with the European Union’s laws on immigration and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. As mentioned, these centers will only detain those from “safe” countries. These are countries that the agreement deems free of persecution, torture, and other forms of inhuman treatment. This list originally included 22 nations but was recently reduced to 19. It lists countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Bangladesh, and happens to include nations with some of the highest migration numbers. Migrants from these countries can still apply for asylum, though the odds of being granted are slim, as the agreement acknowledges that most of these claims will be rejected. Those whose claims are rejected will remain in Albania until plans are made to return them to their country of origin.
Image 2: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni shakes hands with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama. Source: Yahoo Images
Objectives of the New Italy-Albania Migration Deal
One of the primary objectives of this initiative is to reduce overcrowding along the Italian coast and islands, where an average of 100,000 migrants arrive each year. Typically, asylum claims are applied for at the Border Police Station. By relocating potential immigrants before they reach this destination, the average is expected to shrink. Similarly, by targeting refugees from safe countries, the likelihood that these claims receive an asylum grant is small, meaning fewer people are taken into Italy. This all feeds into one of the biggest reasons behind this deal: deterrence. As asylum claims are rejected in higher numbers and refugees cannot reach the European Union, the Italian government hopes that this will discourage others from attempting this journey.
Threats to Human Rights
This agreement has remained controversial since its inception, with many people questioning its adherence to human rights protection, mainly regarding the treatment of vulnerable populations, prolonged detention, and the right to nationality. Under this agreement, those considered “vulnerable,” such as those in need of specific medical attention or with serious medical conditions, are at risk of not receiving proper treatment, as the law lacks written procedures to help such groups. As Amnesty International points out, “there is no clarity on whether such procedures would take place on board the rescue vessels or after disembarkation in Albania,” meaning there is no reassurance that at-risk groups will receive medical attention in a timely manner. This concern has appeared to have some validity, as it has recently been exposed that there are no mechanisms aboard ships that could properly classify someone as vulnerable. Similarly, a majority of asylum-seekers experience some sort of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse prior to or during their journey that would grant them protection from detention.
This program also puts refugees at risk of prolonged detention. International migration standards assert that migration-related detention should avoid being prolonged or indefinite.While the Italy-Albania agreement writes that asylum claims should be granted within 28 days of detention, all necessary procedures, including organizing repatriation, could take up to 18 months. Similarly, the treaty does not write out an explicit cap for detention, meaning detention could continue to surpass the initial 28-day goal.
The Italy-Albania migration deal also raises concerns regarding the right to nationality. Following a rejected asylum claim, plans regarding repatriation are then made with the refugee’s country of origin. However, states may ignore these requests or refuse to work with Italy. Being rejected by Italy and without the support of their home country, asylum-seekers may be left without international representation, thus rendering them devoid of nationality.
Image 3: Refugees begin their journey to Italy. Source: Yahoo Images
Pushback
This program has also been relatively controversial within Italy, with the Italian courts pushing back against Prime Minister Meloni’s plan. Following the first ship of migrants arriving in Albania, the national courts ruled that all 16 asylum-seekers be transferred to Italy rather than remain in the outsourced detention centers. Though coming from the list of safe countries, the judges concluded that the repatriation of the refugees would put them at risk of violence, thus accepting their asylum claims. More recently, the courts ordered the transfer of seven more men from Albania to Italy, again going against the vision presented by Meloni’s government. In this case, the courts explained that for a country to be deemed safe, all cities and regions must be free of persecution and violence, not just select areas. Between these two cases, all 24 detainees have been sent to Italy following their forcible detention in Albania.
This deal follows other agreements Prime Minister Meloni has made with other states regarding immigration. In 2023, the Italian government and the European Union provided monetary and technical support to Libya, encouraging their coast guard to intercept fleeing citizens and forcibly bring them back to the country. Those who attempted to escape were left vulnerable once they returned, often being subjected to various human rights abuses such as torture and sexual exploitation. Prime Minister Meloni has also offered to provide financial assistance to North African countries in an attempt to minimize immigration.
Conclusion
Though initially regarded as a promising answer to European migration, the Italy-Albania agreement has been frequently challenged by both human rights institutions and Italy’s own courts. Though all Albanian detainees have been transferred to Italy, this program raises questions regarding the treatment of refugees, making this issue important to monitor.
The recent National Council elections in Austria, held on September 29th, saw the rise of the Freedom Party (FPO), as they won a plurality of the total vote and overtook the current administration in support. This far-right party has maintained moderate support since its founding in 1956; however, in the past few years, it has seen both a sizeable shift towards conservatism and a significant uptick in support. While only 28.8% of the total vote was garnered, this was more than the Austrian People’s Party’s (OVP) 26.3%, which, up until this election, held the most parliamentary seats. This electoral success has increased FPO representation in the National Council, now having 57 out of 183 total seats. While it seems unlikely that the party will be able to form a coalition and thus achieve a majority in government, this victory still raises questions regarding minority rights and foreign policy and warrants concern due to Austria’s history with far-right regimes. This rise in conservatism also follows a general shift to the right among European countries, making Austria and its surrounding states worthy of monitoring.
Image 1: Austrians rally in support of the FPO. Source: Yahoo Images
Austrian Government: Structure and History
Structure
The Austrian government is a parliamentary system, meaning the percentage a party gains through voting directly translates into representation in government. Similarly, the country is home to numerous political parties, meaning multiple political platforms can receive representation. Considered the backbone of the Austrian government, the National Council is where bills are developed into laws before being passed over for Federal approval. It has a total of 187 seats. Having multiple platforms represented means that parties rarely receive an outright majority, forcing movements to coalesce or form political alliances with one another. This way, legislation can be passed quickly since a majority is held. This system allows for accurate representation of the country’s political views; however, without some sort of coalition, the government might not be able to agree on policies, thus leading to a stalemate.
Impacts of Modern History
Modern history plays an important role in Austria’s political landscape of today. During World War Two, Austria was ruled by the Nazi regime after being annexed into the German Reich. Under this leadership, discriminatory legislation was codified, subjecting Jewish and other minority groups to grossly inhumane treatment. Following the war, the country came under Allied occupation, ultimately leading to its independence in 1955. During this time, Austria declared itself a neutral nation and was generally center-right in social and economic policy. It was also around this time that the FPO was founded by a former Nazi officer. However, the policies were regarded as fitting the center-right norm. Since then, the FPO has slowly gained national recognition and pushed itself to the right, blossoming throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. 2017 showed the biggest jump in support with the FPO forming a coalition with the OVP, causing a noticeable shift to the right within the government, especially regarding views on immigration, Islam, and Austria’s role in the European Union. Though this coalition ultimately collapsed two years later, this period led to a normalization of right-wing and discriminatory rhetoric, setting the path for increased support of the FPO.
FPO: Policies and Potential Implications Regarding Human Rights
Anti-Immigration
The FPO has taken a strong stance against immigration, with its party manifesto claiming that “Austria is not a country of immigration.” The party argues that by minimizing immigrants within the country, taxes can be lowered while still maintaining social welfare programs, going along with its proposal of welfare attached to citizenship. Furthermore, the FPO has shown interest in deportation, lowering accepted asylum claims, and banning new immigrants from entering the country based on family unification. Party leader Herbert Kickl has also shared his belief that migrants who “refuse to assimilate” should lose their citizenship and be forced out of the country. This anti-immigration attitude is additionally concerning when considering the refugee crisis occurring within Europe. The war in Ukraine, civil war in Syria, and earthquakes in Turkey have led to a dramatic increase in asylum claims throughout the continent. Limiting immigration can have detrimental effects on refugees seeking safety, basic necessities, and better living conditions for themselves and their families.
Kickl’s proposed ban on political Islam continues Austria’s pattern of violating its citizens’ constitutional right to religious freedom and gives the government more power to legally carry out anti-Muslim acts.
Gender and Sexuality
The FPO holds extremely conservative views on issues regarding gender and sexuality. The party is against same-sex marriage, writing out in its manifesto that “We are committed to the primacy of marriage between a man and a woman as a distinct way of protecting child welfare.” The movement also hopes to codify the existence of only two genders in the constitution, exclude transgender athletes from participating in sports competitions, and ban the public use of gender-inclusive language. Harmful rhetoric has also been utilized by the campaign, deeming increased representation and inclusivity of LGBTQ+ members as “propaganda” and “indoctrination.” This is part of a broader agenda to reinstate traditional gender norms and conservative family values. The passing of such discriminatory legislation would further marginalize members of the LGBTQ+ community, limiting their personal autonomy and ability to freely navigate their lives.
Foreign Policy
One key component of the FPO’s foreign policy revolves around its skepticism of the European Union, believing the institution holds too much power over signatory countries. In July 2024, the party joined Patriots for Europe, a far-right European Parliamentary group. This movement is supported by various right-wing parties found around the EU. Its platform is centered around weakening the authority of the EU and takes a strong stance against illegal immigration and the implementation of and adherence to the European Green New Deal. Similarly, the FPO is against providing aid to Ukraine on the premise of its 1955 commitment to neutrality. It also rejects the EU’s sanctions on Russia. These ties go back further than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with evidence showing that FPO leader Herbert Kickl might have ties to Russian intelligence agencies. These behaviors show a turn away from the commitments of the European Union and alignment with other Eurosceptic countries.
Image 3: Austrian citizens take signatures to exit the European Union. Source: Yahoo Images
Kickl Controversies
Party leader Herbert Kickl has also been part of numerous controversies, raising questions about the intentions of the FPO and his ability to coalesce. One major issue has been his use of Nazi rhetoric, with his team labeling him as “Volkskanzler,” meaning “people’s chancellor,” a term used to describe Hitler during his reign. Similarly, Kickl gave a speech in which he accused centrist politicians of “Volksverrat,” or “treason against the people.” Again, this term was often used by Hitler and the greater Nazi regime. Kickl has also verbalized his support for the Identitarian Movement, a platform that, at its core, argues for the upholding and protection of white supremacy. He has also utilized hateful rhetoric specifically targeted toward the Muslim community. Throughout his time in politics, he has argued that Islamist fundamentalists should be deported, that hijab-wearing should be banned, and that anti-Semitism within Austria is the fault of Islamic teachings and not due to their Nazi history. Kickl has also been vocal about his opposition to vaccines, claiming COVID-19 vaccinations are “a genetic engineering experiment.”
Due to his countless controversies, the OVP is not seeking a coalition with the FPO, making it unlikely that Kickl and his party will reach a majority within the parliament. While this may ring true, the rise in Kickl’s support highlights the normalization of discriminatory and science-reluctant rhetoric throughout the country, along with aligning with a broader shift towards conservatism within Central Europe as a whole.
Conclusion
Though it is unlikely that Kickl and his party will gain a majority within the parliament, the ability of this far-right movement to gain a plurality signals a broader shift in the country towards conservatism. Not only this, but it highlights the normalization of harmful rhetoric against minority and historically mistreated groups. While FPO’s influence might be limited, the situation in Austria warrants being monitored due to its past with extremist regimes. Similarly, this follows a trend towards conservatism among other European countries, such as Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, which might also have serious implications regarding the commitments and authority of the European Union.
Syria has been home to numerous atrocities over the past few decades, making it an important country to monitor. Since 2011, the country has experienced the collapse of its society due to civil war. However, human rights abuses have existed prior, with the suppression of freedoms being carried out by the government. Not only has the country undergone a history of suppression and state-sanctioned terror campaigns, but the recent earthquakes hitting its Northern and Western territories in 2023 have worsened its humanitarian crisis, resulting in a bleak reality being subjugated upon the Syrian people.
Image 1: Syrian Flag Stands Amidst Destruction. Source: Yahoo Images
Context
Throughout the 1970s, Syria experienced the rise of the Assad dynasty, as Hafez al-Assad declared himself president. During his reign, he used his power to crush civil liberties and freedoms, utilizing force and violence to do so. Hafez also altered the constitution, removing Islam as the state religion in exchange for a secular state. Though this choice was unpopular amongst his constituency, his dictatorial tendencies, along with extreme party loyalty, allowed him to silence the opposition.
Basar al-Assad, Syria’s current leader and successor to his father Hafez, came to power in 2000. Though promising economic and social reform, he failed to provide meaningful change, and the policies that were implemented did nothing but increase inequality within the nation. Alongside these failed governmental measures, an extreme drought increased food prices and saw heightened migration into city centers, thus worsening unemployment. The poor and ignored policies, along with the economic and societal impacts of a five-year drought, caused governmental resentment among citizens as they were desperate for change.
In March 2011, inspired by other Arab Spring movements, which occurred throughout North Africa and the Middle East, Syrian citizens mobilized, calling for regime change and an expansion of personal freedoms and liberties. Though peaceful, these demands were met with extreme violence on behalf of the Syrian government. Labeled as terrorists, the government implemented a “shoot-to-kill” policy on these protestors, with these commands carried out by military officials and paramilitary members. Some concessions were made in April, though not enough to appease protestors. As uprisings continued, so did government violence and pushback. The Syrian Army seized numerous cities, such as Daraa, where they killed hundreds of protestors, cut off water and power, and forced its citizens into starvation. In response, resistance militias began to form and fight against Syrian Army soldiers, unraveling throughout 2012 into a civil war. It later developed into a proxy war, as foreign governments, such as the United States and Russia, involved themselves in the conflict.
Human Rights Abuses
Many human rights abuses have been brought upon Syrian citizens, such as displacement, unlawful arrests, detention and killings, subjection to torture, sexual violence, and disproportional military attacks. Displacement has been one of the largest and most discussed issues that have occurred due to the civil war, with an estimated 12 million citizens forced to move, with six million remaining in the country and six million migrating to other countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. There are many reasons for such migration, but a leading cause is military actions. The 2022 Syrian Network for Human Rights Report found that in 2022 alone, 75,000 people were forcibly moved due to either government or opposition hostility. Though relocating, approximately 70% of refugees still experience poverty and limited access to basic necessities. Syrian civilians also experience arbitrary arrests and detention, with victims commonly subjected to torture. The report also found a minimum of 2,221 cases of inappropriate arrests and signals that extortion could be a primary cause, as they tend to target previous prisoners and those receiving remittance payments. Relationships with political figures or activist leaders are another trend among victims. Civilian casualties frequently occur, with many the direct result of excessive use of force. However, deaths have also been caused by torture and medical negligence. While opposition groups do contribute to these numbers, a majority of the killings have been found to be the fault of the Syrian military. The civil war also led to an unprecedented rise in sexual violence, having some of the highest rates globally. While this impacts men as well, it’s important to note that women and children have been especially targeted. The Syrian military has also repeatedly used excessive force against civilian groups, including the deployment of chemical weapons, cluster bombs, and missiles. Though other human rights violations have occurred, this paragraph is meant to provide insight into some of the most prevalent and recurring forms of abuses.
The February 6, 2023, earthquakes, which primarily impacted Syria and Turkey, worsened the country’s ongoing battle with poverty and human rights struggles. These earthquakes led to the death of some 60,000 Syrian citizens and injured many more. Today, roughly 90% of the population lives below the poverty line. Within that, 50% are living in abject poverty, unable to attain proper food for survival. For reference, in 2010, only 1% of citizens experienced this level of poverty. Even for those outside this statistic, access to food, clean water, and shelter has been extremely limited and seen alongside a rise in violent crime and gender-based exploitation. These earthquakes also contributed to an economic crisis, triggering rampant inflation in the preceding years. The Syrian Center for Policy Research found that, in 2023, consumer prices doubled when compared to the previous year. Average wages have also declined.
Accessing healthcare and treatment are also significant issues. The destruction of the civil war left more than half of the nation’s hospitals nonoperational, leaving injured citizens limited access to treatment. This is gravely concerning as roughly 14.9 million people require medical assistance for survival. For those seeking refuge in other countries, inequality and discrimination still exist, making care inaccessible even in countries with better health facilities. Furthermore, a majority of Syrians have lost the ability to return to their homeland, facing the complete destruction of their livelihoods.
While the civil war resulted in the mass destruction of infrastructure and society, the earthquakes worsened the impacts of such decimation and created new economic issues that citizens were forced to endure.
Image 3: Ruined Buildings in the City of Homs. Source: Yahoo Images
Today
The Syrian civil war has reached somewhat of a stalemate. With the Syrian government controlling roughly 70% of the country’s territory, outright violence and wartime tactics have decreased. However, the regime remains repressive, regularly violating the human rights of its citizens. As for the near future, it seems unlikely that any peace agreements will be formally signed. It also appears that the current president will remain in power, with some regional powers questioning their opposition to al-Assad.
While fighting has greatly decreased, Syria still faces major roadblocks to improvement. Surrounding conflict has interfered with recovery. The conflict in Gaza has carried into Syria, with Syrian civilians being subjects of numerous attacks likely initiated by Israel. The United Nations Human Rights Council Report on Syria writes how three separate air strikes have led to civilian deaths. Though no party has taken credit for these attacks, the report suspects they are carried out by the Israeli military.
Syria is facing a humanitarian crisis. The ongoing civil war, along with the destruction caused by the 2023 earthquakes, has led to a huge rise in poverty and displacement. Furthermore, citizens are subjected to excessive violence and inhumane treatment by their government and opposition groups. Though largely funded by humanitarian organizations, a lack of donations has dried up financing abilities, causing a huge gap between the required aid amount and what has been received. While there appears to be a stalemate, nothing signals that the situation within the country will improve in the near future. This is an urgent crisis.
If able, consider donating to aid organizations:
UNCHR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)
Following a discussion in one of IHR’s Social Justice Cafes, I decided to take a deeper dive into what the terms positive and negative peace entail and what countries across the globe are setting the standard for effective human rights practice. Peace, as we know it, can be defined as freedom from disturbance or fear of violence. So, how then can we have two separate types of peace? The answer is simple. Negative peace is more in line with the definition we are familiar with, implying a lack of disturbance or violence in everyday life. Positive peace takes things a step further by implementing systems and institutions to proactively combat the disruptions of peace before they arrive.
Positive Peace Index
According to the Positive Peace index, a rating scale defined by the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies, 163 countries ranked from best peace practices to worst across the globe. Ratings are based on eight separate factors known as the eight Pillars of Positive Peace, which portray the tolerance level of the country as pertains to varying areas. The pillars are as follows, Acceptance of the Rights of Others, Equitable Distribution of Resources, Free Flow of Information, Good Relations with Neighbors, High Levels of Human Capital, Low Levels of Corruption, Sound Business Environment and Well-Functioning Government. All categories were based on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being extremely tolerable and 5 being not at all tolerable. During my study, two countries stood at the opposite ends of these spectrums, Finland and South Sudan.
Source: http://paanluelwel.com
Finland ranks number 1 out of 163 countries on the Positive Peace Index scale with an overall 1.43 out of 5. This implies that the country is most tolerable and actively encouraging the eight pillars among its citizens. A closer look at this country’s practices will be taken later in the article. Coming in at number 163 out of 163 countries on the Positive Peace Index is the country of South Sudan, scoring 4.4 out of 5. A 2023 study done by Amnesty International dives deeper into the human rights violations that led to this score. The study showed grave violations to the right to life, movement, safety, refuge and food with over 40% of the population experiencing food insecurity. A report done the same year shows Finland had a number of installments of systems to proactively combat human rights violations including introducing a bill to protect indigenous people, providing support to Ukrainian refugees and expanding LGBTI rights. Although the country still experienced some shortcomings, it stands as a shining example to other countries on the list of how to implement positive peace in its human rights practices.
Source: Flickr
America and Positive Peace
So, where do we stand on the list? American exceptionalism would have you think we were somewhere in the top ten at the very least. On the Positive Peace Index score, the United States of America is tied with Spain coming in at number 26.5 out of 163. Good Relations with Neighbors and Acceptance of Rights of Others are the two pillars that scored the highest with 3.049 out of 5 (remember 1 being extremely tolerable and 5 being not at all tolerable). A study done in 2023 by Amnesty International discusses why the US received this score, highlighting instances of gender-based violence, legislation against LGBTQI communities and nationwide restrictions on reproductive rights. A deeper look at the way lower ranked countries address and administer positive peace may have the potential to move us up in the ranks.
An analytical approach to how nations are administering positive peace requires that we look at the ground level to see what is working for its citizens. In the category of Good Relations with Neighbors, Amnesty International reported extensive support to refugees in Finland although they did shorten the time they would provide international protection. On the other hand, and in the circumstances of the US, a new legislative ban was put in place against asylum seekers altogether. Another example can be seen in the category of Acceptance of Rights of Others, the other category in which the United States scored as being highly intolerable. In addition to a bill put in place to protect the indigenous of Finland, the country also pushed forth legislature to make gender recognition available for members of the LGBTQI community. In the US report communities experience increased violence based on their true or perceived sexual identity, anti-LGBTI laws increased as well as discrimination against citizens of perceived Islamic or Jewish origin after the October 7th Hamas attacks.
While the solution to creating more positive peace systems should be apparent to leaders of nation states, it is difficult to convince a country that their ways are not the way, and social engineering cannot be a top-down process. As a member of society, it is our duty to speak up against the smallest injustices that we encounter. Simply treating a human like a human can have vast outcomes on the difference in relations between neighbors and accepting the rights of others. In Samuel Moyn’s, The Last Utopia, the author speaks strongly about how universal human rights is an idea that simply does not exist, but that we all wish to strive for. In the words of my favorite professor, Jordan Kiper, I encourage human rights advocates to continue to “do the good work”. Whether that work is in discourse, research, instruction, conservation or simply observation.
Source: Magicangelworld.blogspot.com
The idea of universal human rights is attainable through implementation of lasting systems of positive peace. Negative peace has too long been the standard in our history. Those in authority in our government may not want to know what these positive systems of peace look like in our society today, but the discourse has already begun. It is possible that the future of positive peace begins right here with us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With the start of quarantine in 2020 and the rise of the social media app TikTok, many activist movements come to light and shed knowledge on the horrific injustices. One of the most prevalent examples is the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in 2020 and the period following it; it has become crucial for individuals to speak out against injustices. In a sense, it is part of “cancel culture” not to speak out, or if you speak out on the incorrect issues. As important as that is, it has been observed that many liberals and progressives only stand against injustices for specific issues. In a way, it involves choosing who is more worthy of having their rights protected. This may seem like an extreme notion or definition of selective activism, but it is essential.
The idea of selective activism was first introduced to me while reading “Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics” by Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick. Even though this book specifically regarded the issues of Palestine and Israel, it dealt with an extremely important point and message; when we label ourselves as activists, we must be activists in all important issues. This is not to say that selective activism is always done intentionally; sometimes, it is by mere mistake or lack of knowledge on various issues. Everyone is guilty of this. Sadly, there are so many human rights injustices in our world that it is impossible to dedicate all your time to fighting for them. But what one can do in these situations is to be cautious of all issues at their prevalent times.
Source: Yahoo Images
What is Selective Activism?
Selective activism is closely linked to the idea of selective hearing, only hearing what you want to hear. Its advocating for specific things only. The best way I have found to explain selective activism is through this quote in the book: “progressives and liberals who oppose regressive policies on immigration, racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, and other issues must extend these core principles to the oppression of others.” Some questions arise when speaking of selective activism; how do we choose? What makes one cause more worthy than another? The answer is simple. There are always causes that we feel especially connected to and that we constantly advocate for, but what is essential is that if one labels themselves as an activist, progressive, or humanitarian, then this needs to apply to all issues. If one is going to protest the killing of innocent individuals in America, then the same support must be shown to women in Iran. If one is going to advocate for Ukrainian refugees, then activism must be shown to MENA refugees and those whose countries are still under occupation. Ravyen Monroe, a writer for Affinity Magazine, explained it perfectly: “You can’t be an activist but stop advocating for certain groups when you get mad. You don’t get to pick and choose who is worthy of respect and who gets degraded by terms that have oppressed them for centuries…That’s not how activism works.”
Source: Yahoo Images
Instances of Selective Activism
The most recent example of selective activism can be the world’s response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis compared to refugees from the MENA region (see blog on this topic here). Although what Ukrainians are going through is indescribable and is seen as an urgent humanitarian crisis, the problem is selective activism. The attention given to Ukrainian refugees was commendable. They were given the necessary aid and protection as needed. However, the same support was not extended to refugees from the MENA region. An Armenian writer explained this as a betrayal and stated, “it hurts to feel that certain people are prioritized in the eyes of the media, and thus, the world.” This type of selective activism is not limited to political activism and can also be seen in environmental activism. For instance, climate change activists. Many took the stance against using plastic and began investing in metal straws once it became a trend but continued to utilize plastic throughout their lives.
Impact of Selective Activism
Selective Activism has negative implications and effects on the world, like the forgotten issue of the Yemen crisis, Islamophobia in European countries, refugees, etc. The list is long and never-ending. Despite the many important human rights crises in the world, some face extreme critical conditions that tend to be forgotten. Many become activists when issues are trending, yet will forget about them once they are off the mainstream media. As illustrated, it is not possible for one to advocate for every cause or injustice. But, if one labels themselves an activist and sees many prevalent issues but ignores it, then that is participating in selective activism. An inclusive solution would be to continue the fight for human rights for all and to stay educated. If there are specific humanitarian causes important to one, make sure you are advocating for all the individuals affected. Below are books, movies, and resources that expand upon the notion of selective activism.
Source: Yahoo Images
Books:
“Except for Palestine: Limit on Progressive Politics” By Marc Lamont Hill & Mitchell Plitnick (This book opened my eyes to the idea of selective activism and its existence)
Movies:
Many movies educate one on the many humanitarian causes. My favorites are:
Cameroon, once a bastion of peace and tranquility, is now a nation beset with a series of violent and armed conflicts. Since late 2016, an armed conflict between the state defense forces of Cameroon and the non-state armed groups (NSAGs) of Southern Cameroons’ has ravaged the country. In the last six years, there have been more than 6,000 deaths, 765,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs), and 70,000 registered refugees in neighboring Nigeria, with approximately 2.2 million people in need of humanitarian aid. The Norwegian Refugee Council has referred to the conflict as one of the most neglected in the world. The long-term human capital consequences of this conflict are enormous.
A more comprehensive background of the armed conflict and humanitarian crisis in Southern Cameroons can be found in a previous IHR blog post, “Cameroon, a Nation Divided”.
Source: via Yahoo Images
It is against this backdrop that the Cameroon Humanitarian Relief Initiative (CHRI) in partnership with the Institute of Human Rights (IHR) co-hosted an international webinar, “Updates on the Humanitarian Crisis from the Ongoing Armed Conflict in the Southern Cameroons”on the 18th of October, 2022. The aim of this event was to discuss the current humanitarian crisis from a multi-perspective panel. The speaker biographies can be found at the bottom of this blog post.
Excerpts from this webinar were edited and woven together for this blog post. The full recording of the webinar is available on request by contacting ihr@uab.edu.
Source: via Yahoo Images
Overview
What are the current humanitarian needs for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Southern Cameroons?
Atim Evenye: The current context and the magnitude of the ongoing crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions remain tense. There is continuous violence in targeted areas. We have the destruction of properties. We have abductions and kidnappings of both community people and administrators. We have killings and local arrests. We have continuous attacks on schools and students. Humanitarians face threats and direct [armed] attacks. [These are carried out] by both parties, the non-state actors and the state defense forces.
The population [has] really [been] under duress and stress for over six years.
Food Security: Atim Evenye: When it comes to the current needs for IDPs, at the moment, I would say food security remains one of those outstanding needs. Especially in the rural areas, because these IDPs have fled their place of abort. They don’t have access to their farms. [As such,] they don’t have the economic capital [for even] daily subsistence. So, there is a lot of dependencies now on family members, [or] world food programs, and other humanitarian organizations bringing food assistance in the area.
Education Accessibility: Atim Evenye: There is a strict restriction around education. In [the rural areas] of the Northwest and Southwest regions, we have children who have not been able to go to school until date. In urban areas, there is a possibility of schools for those who can afford it. Currently, in our zone in the Northwest and Southwest regions, we have lost one month [of school this term], because we are only starting now. So, it becomes challenging on how to catch up. There’s a need for accelerated learning. [Additionally,] teachers have been abducted [and] schools have been burned. [To add to that,] there is a lot of psychological trauma, [as] many children have witnessed or experienced violence firsthand. Both the state and non-state actors [are] not conscious of the impact their actions are having on children. The government doesn’t want to hear about community schools as prescribed by the separatist. So, it’s really very challenging to access education.
Dr. Emmanuel Nfor: Education is one of the issues at the origin and at the core of the crisis, and formal education has been used by NSAGs, [the non-state armed groups], as a political instrument. NSAGs have advocated and enforced a “no school policy”, leading to public school closures for the past four years in many areas. More than fifty percent of threats against buildings in communities have been directed against schools, and many school buildings have been taken over by organized armed groups. Accessing education in emergency services, or going to school in such a volatile environment, is proven to be risky for children, as well as for teachers. Pupils who were in school in most rural areas have dropped out, some joining armed groups, others displaced, and some have outgrown their ages for the classes in which they were and cannot continue. Many parents have lost their means of livelihood and are unable to sponsor their children in school. Despite repeated calls from humanitarian and human rights organizations for education to be depoliticized, schools have been burnt, teachers and students intimidated, kidnapped, and even killed, and some have seen their hands chopped off by members of armed groups.
Gender-based violence (trigger warning): Atim Evenye: We see [a great deal] of gender-based violence. In certain assessments we have conducted, for example, [many of these] young girls in rural areas are not able to go to school. What are they left to do? There is a lot of harassment, rape, and [sexual assaults]. They’re looking for five hundred francs CFA, that’s like one dollar, to [be able to just buy] food to eat. So then, they depend on young men to give them that money. And at the end of the day, they [get pregnant and become] teenage mothers. The whole cycle is really detrimental, it’s a really difficult one.
Dr. Emmanuel Nfor: Sexual violence is rampant, as a direct consequence of the crisis but also due to decreasing livelihoods, negative coping mechanisms, and lack of protection structures. The boy child is an endangered species, at risk of accusation and arbitrary killing from GFs [state defense forces], and forced recruitment by the NSAGs. There are no specific programs by both UN agencies and Internal bodies that address the needs of the boys.
Housing: Dr. Emmanuel Nfor: If we look at where the IDPs in particular are, we have IDPs that are living in the rural areas, in the bushes. We have those living within host communities. We have some that have been able to rent. [But if] they are able to pay for accommodation, [there are] a lot of difficulties because they want them to pay upfront, and they cannot do it. In all three groups, they lack basic WaSH and health services, NFIs [non-food items], and protection from natural hazards. Those who fled to other regions face stigma and severe protection risks related to exploitation, and socio-economic vulnerabilities including extortion, sexual exploitation, and child labor.
Healthcare: Atim Evenye: The next principal need I would say is around healthcare. In recent times we have [had] heath centers burned, and the staff attacked. So, it’s really challenging. Statement needs to be completed, even before the crisis, access to health care has been a serious challenge, especially in rural areas. And then, currently, with the crisis, it’s even more exacerbated. It becomes difficult now [for] humanitarians on the ground who are trying to meet the needs of these people. Take, for example, Doctors Without Borders. They have [had] to put their activities on the hold because they had issues around access [and safety] of their staff.
Dr. Emmanuel Nfor: [There is a lot of] healthcare [needs] for the vulnerable. [Safe practices in regard to] water, sanitation, and hygiene are not being followed. People who live in rural areas don’t have a good source of water. But they could be educated on the fact that even though your source of water is doubtful, you could take it, you boil it, you purify it, or you do something to make it [potable]. That education, they don’t have, or the chemicals for water treatment. Additionally, there is a lack of emergency medical and psychological units, to provide emergency care to the wounded and psychosocial support to those traumatized by the violence. We can educate people on how to prevent simple infections. How can you prevent diarrhea infection? How can you prevent malaria? If this education is done, it could be [one] way to [improve basic healthcare].
Healthcare, which is supposed to be a protected area, unfortunately, has not been the case in this conflict. We have had health centers closed; more than fifty percent of the health centers in rural communities have been closed. Not only the health centers, [but] the health workers do not feel comfortable staying there. So, a lot of them have abandoned [the centers]. The [people] left in these communities cannot access healthcare. Women cannot access antenatal clinics. Vaccinations [are] not being done, and thousands of children are at risk of contracting common vaccine-preventable infections.
The population has been abandoned to themselves.
Health centers that are open in semi-urban and urban areas are overwhelmed by people who have [been forced by the conflict to flee]. And what’s worse is that most of those who have [fled] do not have the means to pay for the treatment. We have some health centers that have accumulated huge unpaid bills because those who access healthcare cannot afford to pay those bills. For the facilities that are open, IDPs cannot afford to pay for the treatment that is given to them.
We have [also] had cases of drugs and other medical equipment [being] seized along the way by organized armed groups. So, it’s difficult to render care because the drugs and medical supplies do not reach the vulnerable in the hard-to-reach areas. Free supply of drugs and medical equipment is disturbed by locked downs, roadblocks, and/ or are seized at gunpoint.
Then the last very worrying thing is that healthcare workers are being attacked or kidnapped for ransom. A lot of them have been attacked both by the non-state actors and by the state forces; [health workers are] kidnapped by the non-state actors and/or arrested by the [state forces]. So, it is not safe [from] either side. They see you as collaborating with the other, and [so the question is] whether you should treat wounded combatants or not. According to the healthcare regulation, we take any wounded persons as patients. But unfortunately, when these [combatants are] treated, we [the healthcare workers] are blamed. The non-state actors blame you for treating the state forces. The state forces blame you for treating the non-state actors. It’s really a dilemma in which we are in.
Future Directions:
Looking towards the future, are there any resolutions to the humanitarian crisis in Southern Cameroons that you can think of that can be implemented at this point?
Dr. Emmanuel Nfor: I think the first thing we need to consider for the humanitarian crisis is that we need to speak the truth.
We need to make a truthful appraisal of what is happening on the field. Address the needs. For example, we are told that the crisis in Cameroon is one of the least funded in the world. Why? Because the data and the reposting are for some reason concealed.
So, if we must be able to go forward with the humanitarian situation, we need to know how many people are living in the bushes, how many are living in host communities, in what conditions are they living, and be able to address it. [These] figures are often contested, they say the number is lower, or they want to sway the number for their gain. So, we must start with you right data. If we have the right data on needs, it will be possible to see where the solutions should come from.
Possible resolution options, specifically for the humanitarian crisis, could consider the following:
-A community-based approach to raise awareness of protection risks in the community and identify and support community-based solutions.
-Advocate for access to civil documentation, especially birth certificates, to avoid a stateless generation and mitigate protection risks associated with a lack of civil documentation.
-Support community mediation of localized conflicts to reinforce the dialogue between host communities and IDPs and avoid tensions within the communities.
-Advocate with parties to the conflict to respect the protection rights of communities, and respect International Humanitarian Laws.
-Finding durable solutions for IDPs intending to stay in their host communities, like those who have established businesses in the new areas.
-Shelter support in rural areas as a high percentage of households live in tents or informal collective shelters
Atim Evenye: When it comes to setting strategies that we can use to resolve this conflict, I would say it’s imperative, for the powers that be to consider the roles of different parties in the conflict. There is a need for parties in this conflict to come to the table and talk. There is a need for dialogue. There is a need for unity. We need to have a unity of purpose, to push our agenda in one voice.
True is the fact that they have been the major national dialogue, [there] have been consultation meetings and other forms of dialogue in smaller circles. But the question is, during this dialogue are the needs of the different parties considered?
For example, we have women who have suffered a lot as a result of this conflict. But at the same time, we have that arm of women who are also seeking solutions on how to resolve the conflict. Women are now spearheading and speaking for themselves. And I think, there is a need to give a listening ear to what the women are saying because I think time in memorial, women have always demonstrated that ability to resolve conflict. So, one way to consider the proposals that women are giving here in Cameroon.
Secondly, there is a need to give academia and research a place. There are a lot of people in the academic who are gathering data, but the fear around it is the dissemination of this information. The administrative system is such that once you do a publication that is not supportive of what is happening, you get targeted. And by both sides. Thus, we try to be balanced in all information dissemination. There is a need for that deliberation and freedom of speech, especially in the area of academia. People should not be afraid to publicize or to make public the research and the results of what they have found in the field. So that’s another way that can be an added value to the approaches to conflict resolution.
Also, there is a need to consider the root causes. The conflict did not just start like that, it degenerated along the line. So, there is a need to go back to the drawing board and understand what pushed the Southern Cameroonians to arrive at this point. What are the different trends that have been changing through the crisis?
When it comes to how to resolve the humanitarian crisis, I think the humanitarian needs are more than what the humanitarian organizations can do, funding is very limited. It’s obvious that humanitarians cannot meet all the needs. So where should we turn to? We should turn to other actors who can bring assistance. We have development actors who can bring resilient, [long-term, skills-building] projects so that the communities will not be too dependent. The people of the Northwest and Southwest have never been those who are dependent on handouts.
They are people who are hard-working. We hear the aches of people wanting to be self-sustaining. They want to just be, to go back and be what they had been doing [before the conflict].
Dr. Emmanuel Nfor: If we don’t put away falsehood, if we don’t speak the truth and have the right data and have the right information about what is going on, on the ground, we will continue for many more years doing much but with very little impact.
The people of Northwest and Southwest can lead by themselves. These are hard-working people. They just need to be empowered, to go back to where they have lived before. There are many people who are longing to go back home, but the problem is that they go to homes that have been burnt. They go to farms that have been abandoned. They go to be reminded of the horror. So, we need psychological treatment and support. We need some form of equipping them to be able to cope with what they have lost. We should be able to end the hostilities and give people the opportunity to go back home.
So, we should rather empower them, than continue to give them aid. Let peace reign, [so that] we can empower them to reveal what they have lost and then see how they can bring up that life again. [Then] we can go forward. But hostilities should cease, and we should speak the truth; to face each other face-to-face and speak the truth.
Speaker Biographies
Atim Evenye Niger-Thomas, received a Ph.D. in Student Conflict Management and Peacebuilding at the International University of Applied sciences for Development (IUASD) Sao Tome in partnership with IPD Yaoundé. Since 2016, Atim Evenye has worked and grown in different roles at the Authentique Memorial Empowerment Foundation (AMEF). Currently, she holds the position of Assistant Director and trainer for Humanitarian Negotiation. Under this supervision, AMEF has grown to be one of the leading humanitarian organizations in the Southwest Region. AMEF runs four core programs namely,Education and Child Protection (ECP), Economic Development and Livelihood (EDL), Gender, Protection and Peace (GPP), Health/Nutrition/ WASH (HNW).
Dr. Nfor Emmanuel Nfor, holds a PhD in Medical Parasitology from the University of Yaounde I, Cameroon. In February 2017, he joined the Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Services (CBCHS), as the Malaria Focal Point. While working with the CBCHS, he attended a Peer Review Workshop on Humanitarian Negotiation organized by the Centre for Competence in Humanitarian Negotiation (CCHN) Geneva. After many other online courses, and several National and International Conferences, he was appointed Trainer and Advisor of Humanitarian Projects within the CBCHS. In this capacity, he coordinated projects executed by the CBCHS with funding from WHO, UNICEF, and UNFPA. He has been at the forefront of Humanitarian activities within the CBCHS during the ongoing sociopolitical crises in the North West and South West Regions of Cameroon, working closely with the Cameroon Humanitarian Response Plan.
This is the second in a series of blog posts that will look further into the conflict in Cameroon. Each month a humanitarian need and/or organization working in response to the humanitarian crisis will be featured on the UAB Institute for Human Rights’ blog.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.
