FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Press release from Access Now

Today [July 1] the United Nations Human Rights Council agreed by consensus to a resolution supporting human rights online, despite efforts by hostile states to eliminate key provisions in the text. The landmark document specifically condemns internet shutdowns and renews 2012 and 2014 resolutions that declared, unequivocally, that human rights apply online just as they do offline.

(click on photo to enlarge)

“The U.N. has boldly spoken against the pressing problem of internet shutdowns. This unanimous statement by the world’s highest human rights body should give governments pause before they order blocking, throttling, and other barriers to information,” said Peter Micek, Global Policy and Legal Counsel at Access Now. “Development and human rights protections are strengthened in tandem when networks remain open, secure, and stable. All stakeholders, from telcos to activists to judges, must band together to demand an end to shutdowns.”

The resolution faced opposition by a small number of influential member states who attempted to water down the text. Access Now joined a group of civil society organizations to urge Human Rights Council member states in a letter to pass the resolution by consensus, citing its importance for bridging the gender digital divide; advancing the Sustainable Development Goals; and incorporating a human rights-based approach into expanding internet connectivity. As the letter notes, the Human Rights Council had twice previously affirmed by consensus that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.”

(Article continued in right column)

Is Internet freedom a basic human right?

(Article continued from left column)

“This resolution marks a major milestone in the fight against internet shutdowns. The international community has listened to the voices of civil society — many of whom have suffered under shutdowns themselves — and laudably pushed back on this pernicious practice,” said Deji Olukotun, Senior Global Advocacy Manager at Access Now. “Shutdowns harm everyone and allow human rights crackdowns to happen in the dark, with impunity. Citizens can’t participate fully in democratic discourse during elections. The Human Rights Council’s principled stance is a crucial step in telling the world that shutdowns need to stop.”

The #KeepitOn campaign is supported by nearly 90 organizations from 41 countries around the globe who are pushing back on internet shutdowns at every level, from governments to telcos to tech companies to everyday internet users. The full list of organizations is available on the campaign website:https://www.accessnow.org/keepiton/

The U.N. resolution follows a recent shutdown in Turkey surrounding bombing attacks, one in Bahrain around protests, and another in Algeria to prevent cheating on school exams. Notably, police in Ghana have backtracked from claims that they intend to block social media during upcoming elections in November 2016, after an uproar from civil society groups, politicians, and the U.N.

Last year, Access Now recorded at least 15 internet shutdowns around the world, and has already recorded 20 shutdowns in the first half of 2016.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article)

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the webpage of the the President of the United Nations General Assembly

Honourable Ministers, Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. We have come to the end of what I believe has been a truly enriching discussion on the UN’s role in maintaining global peace and security. I would like to thank all those who contributed so actively to this event including our speakers, those of you visiting from capitals, our interpreters, colleagues in DGACM, civil society representatives and of course, you, the membership.

Discussions these past few days demonstrate that across the membership, there is a feeling that we are at a watershed moment in terms of both the challenges we are facing in maintaining international peace and security and the way we must tackle those challenges.

Taken together, the recommendations included in the three UN reviews and other relevant processes, provide us with a very solid basis from which to move forward.

Indeed, through this debate we have identified some of the key themes and connectors between these reviews, but what we need now is sustained political engagement and actual implementation.

Shortly after this meeting, I will therefore produce a summary of the key messages from this debate which I will share with both member states, the current Secretary-General and Secretary-General candidates.

I also intend to invite the Secretary-General to brief the membership on how the UN is jointly implementing the relevant recommendations emerging from all three reviews and to consider producing a possible roadmap to that effect.

Among the key messages and my own personal reflections are the following:

First, on the need to rebuild trust.

The UN’s inability to protect civilians in conflicts; the disturbing allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peace keepers; the lack of adequate tools to respond to complex conflicts, to international terrorism or to global challenges with a clear security dimension, have undermined global confidence in the UN’s role in maintaining peace and security.

On this seventieth anniversary, therefore, we need to enhance the trust on which institutional cooperation is build.

Trust between member states, large and small and between member states and the UN, that we will adhere the commitments of the UN Charter to ensure our collective security; that we will uphold our obligations under international humanitarian law; that we will rejuvenate the ability of the United Nations to confront new and evolving threats.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Second, on prevention.

As Leymah Gbowee reminded us – if we spend peanuts on prevention and trillions on war, then we cannot expect to achieve peace.

Greater resources, analysis, research should therefore be dedicated to the UN’s diplomatic and preventive functions.

Furthermore, the search for conflict resolution whether through UN managed missions, efforts pursued with regional organizations or multi-national action authorized by the security council, must be ground in an overall political framework.

Third, on the role of women. Practically everyone agrees that women must be more involved right across the continuum of sustaining peace.

But agreement is not enough. Leadership and targeted steps to make this happen are needed now.

Similarly tools must be developed to place communities at the heart of peace operations.

Fifth, in today’s world the UN must increasingly look to build partnerships at political and operational level with regional and sub-regional organizations; with other multi-lateral partners, with civil society and with the private sector.

Sixth, we have to reduce fragmentation across the three UN pillars notably by enhancing the Peacebuilding Commission’s role and by taking the SDGs as our collective vision and guide. Greater efforts should also be made to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN, including at Headquarters.

Seventh, in relation to the fight against radicalism and terrorism, consideration should be given to identifying concrete ways for the UN to effectively contribute to the international efforts to counter terrorist entities when encountered in mission environments.

Eighth, large-scale displacement may be a consequence of instability or feed into new or existing tensions. Properly responding to these flows in the longer term demands that we focus on addressing the underlying root causes.

And finally, taking office on 1 January 2017, the next Secretary-General will

need to foster support from the UN Security Council and all Member States’ to advance peace, justice and security across our world. In particular, she or he will need support to implement the practical recommendations contained in the three reviews.

_________

To conclude, let us remember that the current or the future Secretary-General can only do so much.

Ultimately, the shift we need – in mind-set, in our financing and partnership mechanisms, in our systems and operations – will only happen if it is supported and driven by governments and leaders around the world

I hope that you and your leaders will rise up to this challenge.

I thank you again for your participation and continued support.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Based on news from various news services as indicated by the links

Meeting on May 2 at the United Nations, the ambassadors making up the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform clashed on the question of enlarging the Council to include more permanent members. When the UN was founded in the rubble of World War II, the five victors — Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union and the US — assumed for themselves permanent council memberships and veto powers. According to the ambassador, their “special powers are a holdover from 1945 in a world that has dramatically changed with the rise of new powers and the UN itself increasing its membership by nearly three times, from 51 to 193.”

The chamber of the United Nations Security Council
Click on photo to enlarge

The ambassador from India called for the addition of new permanent members, referring to a negotiating document which is based on a survey of UN members on council reforms. Of the 122 countries that made written submissions for the survey, 113 — or more than 90 percent — supported expanding both categories of council membership, he said. They include the 54 members of the African Union, 42 from the L.69, which is a group supporting reforms, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members, the G4 and 21 others, in addition to two permanent members, Brtain and France, he said. He spoke on behalf of India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, the so-called G4 group.

Pakistan objected to the proposal by India that it should be added as a permanent member of the Council, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, the so-called G4 group.

And the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea strongly opposed permanent membership of Japan – another member of the G4.

A 13-member group known as Uniting for Consensus (UfC), which included Pakistan and is led by Italy, reiterated its opposition to adding any permanent members, the core of its position on the reform process.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

Another approach was proposed by the Ambassador from Ireland, as follows:

In relation to today’s topic of “categories of membership”, Ireland is not convinced by arguments for the creation of new permanent members of the Council. Democratic accountability is a watchword for almost every global institution. The Security Council should be no different. To create new permanent seats – which would not be subject to periodic election by the membership – would risk compounding many of the problems of the present dispensation.

At the same time, we fully recognise that there are countries which, due to their ability to contribute significantly to the maintenance of international peace and security, should be able to play a stronger role on the Council than allowed by the current arrangements. For this reason, although we are open to considering various models for expansion, we are positively disposed towards the creation of a new category of seats with an 8 year term. Ireland believes there should be 6 seats in this category, with 2 each from the African and Asia-Pacific group, and 1 each from WEOG and GRULAC.

We also believe an expansion of the current category of 2 year seats is warranted, including to ensure that smaller states can continue to serve regularly on the Council. These should increase by 5 to 15, with the African group taking 2 of the new seats, and the Eastern European group, the AsiaPacific group and GRULAC taking 1 each.

It would be for further consideration whether seats in either of these categories would be eligible for immediate re-election. The overall regional breakdown of seats under the model outlined above would result in 7 Council members from Africa, 6 members from WEOG, 6 from Asia Pacific, 4 from GRULAC, and 3 from Eastern Europe.

This would result in a Council of 26 seats, which would, in our view, be a good balance between representativeness and efficiency. As previously outlined, we continue to favour eventual abolition of the veto, and, as we would do not favour creating any new permanent members of the Council, the extension of the veto to any new member does not arise.

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article by Gu Zhenqiu for Xinhuanet

The first public interviews with the current nine candidates vying to be next UN secretary-general and a three-day event which is first of its kind in the 70-year history of the world body, concluded here [at the United Nations] Thursday [April 14] with 193 UN member states judging their performance and answers to the questions from the globe.

This combination photo shows the candidates for the next United Nations Secretary-General. Upper row from left to right: Igor Luksic, Montenegro’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Danilo Turk, former president of Slovenia, Antonio Guterres, former prime minister of Portugal and former UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Middle row from left to right: Vesna Pusic, former Croatian foreign minister, Irina Bokova, director-general of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Natalia Gherman, former minister of foreign affairs and European integration of Moldova. Bottom row from left to right: Srgjan Kerim, President of the 62th session of the United Nations General Assembly, and former minister of foreign affairs of Macedonia, Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Vuk Jeremic, President of the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, and former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Serbia. (Xinhua/Li Muzi)
Click on photo to enlarge

The questions – which also came from members of civil society – to the five men and four women along with their answers were heard via webcast. In fact, the public hearings, also known as “informal dialogues” within the United Nations, rekindled the debate on how to make the global organization more relevant, transparent, efficient and effective in efforts to deal with grave global challenges, such as climate change and terrorism.

The questions, put forward either by a diplomat on the scene or a child through video, were intended to help choose the best person to succeed the current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose tenure is to end on Dec. 31.

The questions were challenging, illustrating high expectations of the international community to see a strong UN chief at the helm of the world’s most universal and authoritative organization.

There were questions that illustrated how different countries have different concerns based on their national interests.

For instance, African and Caribbean countries worry about a lack of access to concessional funds from industrialized nations in their development efforts, while Algeria and other states also voiced concerns at the unbalanced and inequitable composition of UN staff at headquarters in New York in terms of gender and geography.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Can the UN help move the world toward a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the column on the left)

African and Asian countries asked questions on how the next UN head will strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations. Other countries, including Sierra Leone, wondered how the UN would execute its “zero tolerance” policy in a bid to end sexual abuse by peacekeepers in conflict-torn countries such as the Central African Republic.

A representative from Rwanda, who complained that “the conflict” raged in a regular pattern, particularly in Africa,” asked Helen Clark, one of the nine candidates and former prime minister of New Zealand, what measures she would take to reverse the trend.

Riyad Mansour, the permanent observer of Palestine to the United Nations, asked the candidates how they would end the Isareli-Palestinian conflict.

Small island countries, on the other hand, said they have been haunted by the impact of climate change. “What would you do to make sure countries take actions to stop catastrophic climate change?” a child asked via video.

Meanwhile, Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, which form the Group of Four (G4), asked most of the nine candidates about how he or she would reform the UN Security Council, the most powerful body in the UN family. Each of the G4 aspire to become permanent members.

There were also questions related to gender equality, human rights, sustainable development, the UN budget, UN management and UN peacekeeping operations.

Mogens Lykketoft, President of the UN General Assembly, told reporters that the event is just a “starting point” in the process of selecting the next UN secretary-general.

“I am surprised by the large number of countries and members of civil society coming forward to ask questions,” Lykketoft said. “It’s more than I expected.”

At this moment, there is still no public comments either by diplomats or senior UN officials on the performance of the nine candidates. People here at the United Nations are still arguing whether gender or geographical rotation should be the only criteria for the selection of the new top diplomat in the world.

But a key question remains: what impact will the open interviews have on the final decision by the UN Security Council, the 15-nation UN body which has the final say in deciding who will be the next UN chief?

Under the UN Charter, the secretary-general is chosen by the 193-member General Assembly on the recommendation of the 15-member Security Council.

In practice, this has meant that the council’s five permanent members, namely Britain, China, France, the United States and Russia, have veto power over the candidates. That will not change in deciding who succeeds Ban.