Without Security there will be No Democracy in Haiti

Deep Concerns about the Current State of Insecurity in Haiti 

Organization of American States (OAS) General Secretariat on the Security Situation in Haiti

The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) expresses its deep concern about the current state of insecurity in Haiti.  It is more necessary than ever to promote cooperation efforts in the United Nations to restore security in the country.  It is irresponsible that the necessary measures and actions continue to be delayed.

Without security there will be no democracy.  In that sense, we reaffirm our support for the Haitian people, within the country and in the diaspora, and our commitment to continue collaborating to promote a solution that advances the much-needed democratization process in the country, seeking guarantees in human rights and protection for all and a peaceful context in which to hold free and fair elections in Haiti.

The OAS General Secretariat is determined to strengthen its cooperation with Haiti to confront the current challenges of democratic instability, unemployment, food insecurity, illiteracy, health insecurity, corruption and other sociopolitical and socioeconomic problems that affect the country and that are exacerbated by the perpetual violence of the criminal elements that have held the country hostage.

March 04, 2024

Source

...the Hemispheric Declaration on Migration and Protection of Migrants imposed by Washington at the Ninth Summit of the Americas "is an example of its racist, xenophobic and plundering vision of migrants. It does not address in any way the real causes of migration"

The regional approach to the issue of migration in The Americas by the United States denounced!

The fall of the world GDP, which is around 10%, plus poverty and inequality, will increase the migratory pressure... in 2021 alone, one out of every 88 inhabitants of the planet left their native country 

 

More and more people die trying

People will not stop migrating and they will do so even if the conditions worsen, there is no legal protection and they can be at the mercy of various forms of violence and exploitation, ranging from underground human trafficking networks to various forms of fraud in the destination countries, where they will become a new layer of ultra-precarious migrants.

By  Francisco Arias Fernández | informacion@granmai.cu

An incident on Friday July 1st at Morocco’s border with Spain left 37 irregular migrants dead and hundreds injured, 13 of them seriously.  The repercussions were that of an international scandal and calls for a thorough investigation by the United Nations raised from everywhere.

The victims died as a result of military repression, crushing or suffocation, when there was a human avalanche and they were trapped in a watercourse near the border.

While authorities put the blame on the organized crime, the spokesman of the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization believes there was an excessive use of force on both sides of the border.

Referring to what many media have described as a "massacre," UN official Stéphane Dujarric pointed out that authorities observed an "excessive use of force," which is "unacceptable" and therefore must be investigated.  He recalled that States "have obligations" under the international law and human rights.

For its part, the UN Committee for the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families urged the governments of Spain and Morocco to "immediately" open a "thorough, independent and transparent" investigation, to which both parties agreed.

Three days later, on the other side of the Atlantic, in San Antonio, Texas, United States, 51 irregular migrants were found suffocated in the trailer of a truck.  Sixteen were rescued alive, including four minors.

Translated by ESTI

The discovery was made after screams were heard from inside the container on the truck, which had no water, air conditioning or oxygen, while the temperatures outside were around 40 degrees Celsius.

In addition, someone detected a corpse in the vicinity of the truck, abandoned near a military base, 16 kilometers from San Antonio and 250 kilometers from the Mexican border.

The first investigations point to three detainees.  Moreover, the vehicle's license plate was from the United States, which made it easier for it to cross the border without being subject to mandatory inspection.

The White House has committed itself to clarify the facts and dismantle the trafficking networks, at a time when the country reports high immigration peaks and a new record of illegal entry registration, with more than 239,000 in May, most of which cross through the border with Mexico.

A few hours later, it was known that the most recent tragedy in the Central Mediterranean left more than 22 missing migrants and 71 survivors; while another 500 people rescued and on board ships of European humanitarian organizations were waiting to be taken to the mainland.

NEWS THAT IS NO LONGER

Migration news have long been prominent in mainstream media all over the world; but they grow in frequency and cruelty as the world economic crisis, war conflicts, the impact of the pandemic, poverty, famine, blockades, sanctions, political manipulation of the issue and many other factors deepen, which have led experts to affirm that we are going through one of the greatest migratory crises in history, with more than one hundred million displaced persons in the last two years, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The agency indicates that, in 2021 alone, one out of every 88 inhabitants of the planet left their native country.

It adds that 83% of global migrants move to low- and middle-income countries, which are sometimes transit points to destinations such as the United States or the European Union, but the "migration shielding" policies of these countries often cut off migrants before they reach their destination.

The Missing Migrants project of the International Office for Migration (IOM) recently revealed that more than 4,000 deaths per year have been recorded on migration routes around the world since 2014, but this is a minimum estimate, because most of these deaths go unrecorded.

The report adds that since 1996 there have been more than 75,000 deaths in the attempt to migrate, and 48,423 from January 1, 2014 to 2022.  These statistics partially reflect the disaster because they do not include the level of suffering it generates in relatives and confirm the dangers or risks of facing the adventure.

The three most lethal points, according to the IOM project, are the Mediterranean Sea, with 23,900 migrants dead or missing; Africa, with 11,400, and America with 6,200, 60% on the border of Mexico and the United States.

According to experts, there will be more migrants and more will die in the attempt, as it has become a trend in the last two years, a trend that will worsen in the long term, as the enormous recession generated by the pandemic will drastically change migration.

The fall of the world GDP, which is around 10%, plus poverty and inequality, will increase the migratory pressure.

They estimate that people will not stop migrating and they will do so even if the conditions worsen, there is no legal protection and they can be at the mercy of various forms of violence and exploitation, ranging from underground human trafficking networks to various forms of fraud in the destination countries, where they will become a new layer of ultra-precarious migrants, according to the digital media IzquierdaWeb.

The lack of seriousness by some countries in the search for concrete solutions to these serious phenomena, together with the growing tendency to polarization and conflict between powers, are considered obstacles to solving problems that require integrated or coordinated responses at the international level.

Recently, the Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, in addressing the regional approach to the issue by the United States, denounced that the Hemispheric Declaration on Migration and Protection of Migrants imposed by Washington at the Ninth Summit of the Americas "is an example of its racist, xenophobic and plundering vision of migrants.  It does not address in any way the real causes of migration".

He reaffirmed that "it will be impossible to obtain concrete results in the management of irregular migratory flows if there is no genuine dialogue and collaboration among all the governments involved to respond to a problem of a global nature."

Source

...fundamental human rights and freedoms in The Bahamas

Arriving at a culture of human rights: The case of The Bahamas

By Gaynel Curry

A culture of human rights speaks to how we engage as a people, respecting self, others and property; how we solve our problems, using non-violent responses; how easily and speedily we access justice and services, whether functioning as individuals or on behalf of the state; how we ensure that socio-economic development is inclusive of all members of society; how we strengthen the capacity of government institutions to respond to contemporary social ills, including rising crime and increasing socio-economic challenges; and the freedom with which we assemble and speak our cultural truth.

What are human rights?

“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status,” as defined by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  In essence, they are rights that one has simply by virtue of being human and cannot be taken away.  The exception is where rights are taken away according to due process such as in the case of a prisoner whose right to liberty is taken away when found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

The shift in thinking about human rights

Human rights are not a new concept.  Countries were allowed individually to define what human rights meant to them and as a result, some countries interpreted individual’s rights either narrowly (as in Switzerland which only allowed women to vote in 1971) or broadly (as in New Zealand where women were given the right to vote as far back as 1893).  It was the atrocities committed during the Second World War – primarily the holocaust of the Jews – that led the victors of the war to determine limits for countries on how they could treat people within their borders.  Essentially, they established common standards for countries to respect the human rights and dignity of persons.

The Charter of the United Nations can be considered the beginning of these efforts.  In 1945, at the  end of the war, the 51 founding members of the United Nations (UN) agreed that human rights would be a central feature of the organization – “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.  Today, 193 member countries, including The Bahamas, have signed the United Nations Charter, each one reiterating this commitment to “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction”.

What was the result of the shift in thinking about human rights?

While the charter established guiding principles to give meaning, purpose and language to the interactions between countries and individuals in terms of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) became the framework to put meat on the bones by naming specific rights.  It identified two groups of rights: civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.  The declaration was intended to lead one treaty of both groups of rights, but there was no consensus on this approach.  Ultimately, two treaties were agreed to, each one covering one of the two groups of rights – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  Both were adopted in 1966 and entered into force 10 years later.  Many of the rights spelled out in these two covenants have been included in the constitutions of countries as constitutional rights, or in national laws such as labor laws, protecting the rights of workers.

ICCPR guarantees, for example, the rights of legal redress; equality; life; liberty; freedom of movement; a fair, public and speedy trial for criminal charges; privacy; freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion; peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.  The covenant also forbids arbitrary arrests; torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and slavery.

Having ratified ICESCR, states agree to apply these rights over a period of time (progressive realization): the right to earn a living by work; to safe and healthy working conditions; to join a trade union; to receive social security; to adequate housing; to be free from hunger; to receive health care; to obtain free public education; and to participate in cultural life.  Rights are interrelated and sometimes impossible to detach one from the other, as was highlighted at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights.  For example, the deprivation of the civil right of association impedes a worker’s social and economic right to join a trade union.

Other international human rights treaties

The two covenants were just the beginning of what has evolved into an elaborate UN international human rights system.  This system includes a number of other treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which entered into force prior to the covenants in 1969 as consensus was more easily reached among countries on anti-discrimination issues; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1981); Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) (1987); Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1990); Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (2003); Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2006); and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006).

Many of these conventions have what may be called spinoff conventions (optional protocols) that allow individuals to submit complaints of violations of their rights or that address specific thematic human rights issues.  For example, CRC has two optional protocols: one on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the other on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

All countries have ratified at least one of the 19 UN human rights treaties and optional protocols and according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 80 percent of countries in the world have ratified four or more of these core treaties.  Commonwealth Caribbean countries have, on average, ratified five of these core treaties; St. Vincent and the Grenadines have ratified the most among Caribbean states (eight) and St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia the least (three).  All Caribbean countries have ratified CRC and CEDAW.  CRC is the most ratified international human rights treaty – the Unites States of America, Somalia and South Sudan are the only three countries in the world that have not yet ratified.

Where does The Bahamas stand with the international human rights treaties?

Soon after independence in 1973, The Bahamas joined the UN and began engaging with the international human rights system.  To date the country has ratified five UN human rights treaties which is about average for Caribbean countries.  Mindful of the country’s history of slavery and the fight for enfranchisement of persons of African descent, the CERD (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) was the first International Human Rights Treaty that the country ratified in 1975.  Subsequently, The Bahamas ratified CRC in 1991; CEDAW in 1993; and ICCPR and ICESCR in 2008.  The country has signed and indicated a willingness to ratify CAT.  The government also indicated that it was “acutely aware of the need to protect the rights of persons with physical or mental disabilities”, and reported to the Human Rights Council in January 2013 that it expects to soon sign and ratify CRPD.  To date, The Bahamas has submitted at least one report to each of the committees mandated to monitor and assist countries to implement CERD, CEDAW and CRC.

Do treaties offer the full picture on international human rights?

The UN international human rights system is not just about the treaties, that’s only half of the story.  It is also about the Human Rights Council (formerly the commission) which has an equally important role in the promotion and protection of human rights.  The council includes 47 of the 193 countries of the UN and has developed processes (mechanisms) such as working groups and special rapporteurs to assist it in monitoring country specific situations and thematic human rights issues.  For example, the situation of political and socio-economic rights in Haiti is monitored by a special rapporteur on human rights in Haiti.  Human trafficking is a global thematic issue which is monitored by a special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

What is unique about the Human Rights Council is that it is the only body that has responsibility for the review of human rights in all 193 UN member states under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).  The UPR is a peer review (by countries of a country) which results in recommendations to countries on how to improve their human rights record.  The UPR was introduced in 2006 and to date all countries, with the exception of Israel, have accepted the review.  The Bahamas completed its second UPR cycle in January 2013; the first was in September 2008.

Where does The Bahamas stand with the UPR?

Forty-five member states participated in The Bahamas’ UPR process and recommended strengthening legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities; establishing a National Human Rights Institution or Ombudsman; criminalizing marital rape; amending the legislation to ensure that Bahamian women can pass their nationality to their children in the same way that men can; placing a moratorium on executions with the view to abolishing the death penalty; ending by law all forms of corporal punishment; introducing legal measures to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; improving the conditions at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre; strengthening measures to protect women against violence, including domestic violence and rape; increasing the age of criminal responsibility; strengthening measures to combat trafficking; and establishing an independent oversight body to receive and investigate excessive use of force by security forces.

Most of the recommendations are not new or unique to The Bahamas.  Many have been raised by the committees in the human rights treaty reporting process and have also been addressed to other countries, including Commonwealth and Caribbean states with similar historic, legal, socio-economic and cultural realities. The Bahamas recognizes the need to address some of these recommendations immediately and has been proactive in responding.  The Constitutional Reform Commission is expected soon to release its report, which, according to its mandate, should include discrimination and gender equality issues; citizenship and nationality rights; capital punishment and the distribution of state power vis-à-vis individual rights – many of the same issues raised at the UPR.

Embracing human rights and the way forward

As a human rights advocate, I see the recommendations from the UN international human rights system as opportunities rather than challenges for states.  They present an opportunity for governments to set priorities in terms of specific human rights issues and, more broadly, implement a human rights agenda, including with the appropriate allocation of resources.  They also give civil society and donors an opportunity to reflect on priorities and outreach in terms of vulnerable groups and they open a space for discussion and awareness-raising within society on important human rights issues.  Finally, they are fodder for academia to target their research with the view to presenting viable options for the consideration of institutions of governance.

Implementing human rights is not exclusively a function of government.  It should involve several elements of society as we all have a role to play in building a culture of human rights and translating this vision into a shared reality.  The Bahamas is well on its way, 40 years after independence, to building a strong nation.  Each human right should be seen as a building block for developing that strong nation and cultivating an environment in which all people can enjoy their fundamental human rights and freedoms.

 

• Gaynel D. Curry is the gender and women’s rights advisor in the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in New York.  She has worked with the UN for 15 years in various other human rights advisory capacities in Geneva (Switzerland), East Timor, Afghanistan, and South Sudan. She holds a master’s degree in international human rights law from the University of Oxford; a master’s degree in international affairs (public international law) from the American University in Washington, DC; a degree in law (LLB) from the University of London; a bachelor of arts degree in history and social sciences from the University of the West Indies; and an advanced diploma in public policy and administration from The College of The Bahamas.

June 14, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

US Ambassador criticises Bahamas

US Ambassador Nicole Avant has criticised the Bahamas for abstaining from a UN vote on human rights resolutions concerning the actions of Iran, Burma and North Korea.

She noted that formerly, the Bahamas was consistently one of the "brave souls" in the region that stood up for human rights.

Mrs Avant said it is the "fervent hope" of the United States that the Bahamas and other Caribbean countries who abstained or voted against the resolutions will reconsider.

"We cannot stand by and wait when people's lives are at stake and the principles that we all purport to share-- respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights -- are in jeopardy," she said.


December 19, 2009

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fred Mitchell Confirms The Bahamas Voted in Support of Cuba’s Ascension to The New United Nations Human Rights Council

Former Prime Minister, Hubert Ingraham Responds: "If we were in office Cuba would not have the nerve or the gumption to ask us to vote for them to be on a human rights commission.  That’s an unthinkable event."

Hubert Ingraham said an FNM government never would have supported Cuba’s ascension to the United Nations Human Rights Council

Row Over Cuba Vote

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

18 May 2006

Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell tabled in the House of Assembly on Wednesday documents that confirmed that the Bahamas voted recently in support of Cuba’s ascension to the new United Nations Human Rights Council.

But the minister refused to state in clear terms while addressing the lower chamber exactly how the Bahamas voted.  He, however, did lash out at former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham over remarks Mr. Ingraham made in Grand Bahama on Saturday on the issue.

Mr. Ingraham said during his weekend press conference, "If we were in office Cuba would not have the nerve or the gumption to ask us to vote for them to be on a human rights commission.  That’s an unthinkable event."

In response, Minister Mitchell said the former prime minister was irresponsible in his comments and he accused him of political mischief making.

"I am concerned about the tenor and tone of the remarks coming from the side opposite about a country that sits on our western border, and who the last time I checked was considered at peace with us and a friend to our country," the foreign minister said.

"The language is contrary to the spirit of comity between the two countries…The position of the government as it relates to Cuba is no different from that of its citizens who, as the leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, are free to travel where they wish.  The government must protect their interests."

Minister Mitchell tabled a document from Nicole L. Archer, who wrote on behalf of this country’s Permanent Mission in New York presenting the government the Mission’s recommendations regarding who the country should vote for.

The Mission identified both first-choice candidates and back-up candidates in the event that the Mission’s first-choice candidates were eliminated at any time during the balloting.

In all, the Mission identified 47 countries The Bahamas should vote for.

According to Ms. Archer, the Mission took into consideration each country’s human rights record and voluntary commitments to human rights.  It also took into consideration, The Bahamas’ relationship with specific countries and the need to ensure a broad and varied spectrum of political, economic and cultural views on the council.  Other factors were also taken into consideration.

One of the countries that the Mission advised The Bahamas to vote for as a first choice was Cuba.  Among the back-up candidates the Mission recommended The Bahamas vote for were Iraq and Iran.

But Minister Mitchell told reporters that the country did not vote for any of the back-up candidates because that did not become necessary.

Earlier, he told House members, "The government saw no reason to interfere with the advice offered and the votes cast on Tuesday 9 May were consistent with the advice given and consistent with historic patterns of voting by all previous administrations."

But Mr. Ingraham, who spoke with reporters in the Opposition Committee room of the House, accused Mr. Mitchell of misleading Bahamians.

"He did not and would not tell us how The Bahamas voted last week on Cuba’s membership on the Human Rights Commission," the FNM leader said.

"This is a new commission established by the United Nations and countries are able to vote for their choice.  It was wrong of Mr. Mitchell to lay the blame for The Bahamas’ vote or to support The Bahamas’ vote position by producing a minute of a relatively junior foreign officer in the Mission in New York."

During his communication, Minister Mitchell laid on the table of the House a copy of the record of the votes taken by The Bahamas on the embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba.

He noted that on each occasion, except two, the Ingraham government voted with the vast majority of the members of the UN General Assembly against the embargo imposed by the United States.

"If the Cuban government and people were so odious then why did he not change The Bahamas’ position when it was his time?" Minister Mitchell questioned.

He also noted that it was under the Ingraham Administration that the decision was made in 2001 to allow the Government of Cuba to establish a consulate general’s office in Nassau.

But Mr. Ingraham responded to this saying," No, we would not have had an embassy of The Bahamas in Cuba.  We may have had a consulate office, which is a downgraded position, in Cuba to deal with Bahamian nationals…I don’t know what it is about Cuba that causes it to rise to the level of ambassadorship from this government’s point of view.

"We didn’t see it that way and don’t see it that way, so if we came to office, we would downgrade the office in Cuba back to consular level."

The foreign minister also said the record will show that under the Ingraham Administration a statement was submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations which read, "The Commonwealth of the Bahamas enjoys normal diplomatic and trade relations with the Republic of Cuba.  The Bahamas has not promulgated or applied laws or measures against Cuba that would prohibit economic, commercial or financial relations between The Bahamas and the Republic of Cuba."

But Mr. Ingraham told reporters that Minister Mitchell was confusing issues.

He also said that during the time when the former government appeared to have voted in favour of Cuba on certain issues, it was because voting was done in groupings, meaning that countries were not free – like they were during the recent UN vote – to vote for individual countries.

"We would have ended up with many human rights violators on the commission before now," he explained.  "That’s why the UN scrapped that system and put in a system where you have to vote for individual countries.

So this is the first time The Bahamas has had an opportunity to vote for or against an individual country."

He said an FNM government never would have supported Cuba’s ascension to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

"There are many things that we support Cuba [on], but not to be a member of the human rights commission," Mr. Ingraham said.

"Cuba’s human rights record does not lend itself to membership on a human rights commission and one of those tenets for a human rights commission would be countries that allow their citizens to leave the country when they choose to and return when they choose.  Cuba does not do that."

Explaining the position his Administration took to refuse to support the US embargo, the former prime minister said, "We never supported the embargo the United States has against Cuba; we never did.  We don’t propose to do so in the future.

"The most critical (and important) relationship The Bahamas has with a country outside its borders is the one with the United States of America.  We want to maintain the relationship with Cuba, Haiti and other countries in the Caribbean and the world, but we’re not going to put at risk our relationship to cozy up with and be friends with Cuba."

He said the refusal of the Ingraham Administration to support the US embargo with Cuba is a completely different matter than a vote in support of Cuba on human rights.

But Minister Mitchell said that the record clearly shows that the instructions given to the UN delegation by the former government in 1994 were to support Cuba’s membership on the Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. Ingraham, however, accused the foreign minister of distorting the facts.