2013-05-22T07:08:44-04:00 Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=kate-allen Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Kate Allen Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3281461 2013-05-15T17:02:24-04:00 2013-05-16T03:11:38-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
A few short weeks ago, the United Nations agreed to adopt the world's first international arms trade treaty.

This treaty has the potential to stem the flow of weapons to conflicts; conflicts where thousands of people are killed, injured, raped, and forced to flee from their homes. And last night's event marked the culmination of decades of hard work from Amnesty International, a wide coalition of NGOs and politicians of all colours. But the treaty still has some hurdles to clear.

On 2 April, 155 nations agreed to adopt the treaty, but now those nations need to turn their words into action.

On 3 June, the treaty will be opened up to nations to sign. To come into force 50 of those signatures need to ratify it. And that's why last night's meeting was so important.

The gains achieved in the Arms Trade Treaty will only be realised if the treaty is rapidly and effectively implemented and robustly enforced. It is now up to the likes of Amnesty to build on the momentum we created in the run up to the vote in April to ensure that this happens.

To the many ambassadors and representatives of Foreign Ministries I met last night, I had one clear message: Make sure your government attends the signing ceremony, sign up and encourage others to follow suit.

Our target is that within 24 hours the required number of signatures is not just reached but far surpassed. That would send out a clear message to the three nations that voted against the treaty - North Korea, Syria and Iran - that the rest of the world is serious at regulating the arms trade. By the end of the evening several nations had pledged to sign on 3 June.

I have seen first-hand how important the treaty is. Last year I went to Afghanistan. I remember being in Kabul and how it was commonplace to see men with guns strung across their shoulders.

The level of insecurity is so great, it's almost tangible. Hardly anyone goes out at night there. I spoke to one woman human rights defender who told me how they needed to get control over the way weapons are being used in the country. Arms have poured into Afghanistan from almost every weapons-supplying country in the world and they have ultimately changed the way people live.

But it is not just in Afghanistan where the treaty could make a huge difference.

Every minute of every day at least one person dies from armed violence and conflict.

Add to that the millions of men, women and children who are caught up in the effects of armed conflict through injuries, through schools, homes and hospitals being destroyed or through people being forced to flee their homes.

The fundamental purpose of an Arms Trade Treaty still remains. It must reduce the human suffering. It must protect human rights and uphold international law by categorically adhering to the so-called 'Golden Rule' - a rule that no arms should be supplied to anyone where there is a clear risk that those weapons would be used to facilitate atrocities.

The Arms Trade Treaty is needed to help save lives and to help protect people from armed violence and armed conflict.

An Arms Trade Treaty is needed to help reduce human rights violations and give people a better chance of escaping poverty.

It has been a long journey. The idea for the treaty was mooted by an Amnesty International representative some 20 years ago. And on a personal level, I have been campaigning for 10 years to reach this moment.

One of my greatest memories over that time is the Control Arms Mass Lobby of Parliament in 2006.

I remember standing outside the Houses of Parliament with hundreds of Amnesty, Oxfam and IANSA supporters waiting to enter to meet with our MPs. We wanted MPs to urge the Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, to commit to securing agreement to start negotiations for an international Arms Trade Treaty when world leaders met later that year at the United Nations. It was also on this day that David Cameron - as leader of the Opposition - also voiced his party's support for an Arms Trade Treaty. It was breath-taking to see such cross-party support for this campaign.

That memory was only eclipsed by the joy of seeing the United Nations finally adopt the treaty earlier this year, some seven years later.

And now we are on the verge of seeing it come into force. We campaigned for this treaty to save lives and regulate this deadly trade. Last night marked another step on the path to making it happen.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3145221 2013-04-24T19:00:00-04:00 2013-04-24T12:44:05-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
Last week Greece's international image took a serious knock when 200 Bangladeshi workers at a strawberry farm were shot at, allegedly by their bosses, for demanding the pay - a little over three Euros an hour - they'd been owed for seven months. Eight of them were seriously injured.

When Amnesty researchers visited the farm in Manolada, southern Greece, a few days later, they discovered horrendous living conditions where workers - some in their early teens - slept in crowded sheds without access to clean water or sanitation. They told my colleagues they have to pay €20 a month - nearly a full day's wage - for the pleasure of living there. Living and working conditions like these are clearly unacceptable in 21st-century Europe.

The Greek authorities promptly condemned the shooting and have opened criminal investigations. The farm owner and three supervisors have been arrested. This action is to be welcomed, but the shooting is part of a wider problem. It was the culmination of months of neglect and ill-treatment of thousands of migrant workers around Manolada.

The strawberry pickers told my colleagues there are around 2,000 Bangladeshis working in the area, with a further 3,000 or more from other countries, including Bulgaria and Albania. Some have residence permits or asylum applications, but others are irregular migrants without insurance or access to health care. Journalists who have reported on working conditions in Manolada have been threatened and attacked by farm supervisors.

"Our visit to Manolada confirmed the very real sense of fear and ongoing danger for the strawberry pickers, who are still reeling from last week's violent attack and their despair over not being paid and the inability to support their families," said Lia Gogou, our Greece researcher. "The sad reality is that many of them feel trapped and that they have no other choice but to carry on working there."

The shooting was just the latest incident highlighting the vulnerability of migrants in Greece. Racist attacks are on the rise with far-right parties like Golden Dawn rapidly gaining public support as the country struggles with a crippling economic crisis. In some cases the police refuse to help, in others victims with no papers fear arrest if they speak out.

Police harassment is common, with migrants frequently stopped by police in sweep operations, ironically code-named Xenios Zeus after the Greek god of hospitality and protector of strangers. If they don't have legal papers they can be hauled off to one of the country's squalid detention centres that wouldn't have been out of place in medieval times, and where reports of ill-treatment by police are common.

Many remain without papers not through choice, but because Greece's chaotic immigration system can be impossible to access. This leaves them vulnerable not only to arrest, but also to the kind of exploitation the strawberry pickers and so many like them face on a daily basis.

The situation is so bad that even people fleeing the conflict in Syria say they would rather go back there than stay in the country they thought would offer them some respite.

"One hundred per cent I will die in Syria, but one hundred per cent I die here too" one man told Amnesty researchers. He had just been released from three months behind bars in a grim detention facility despite having committed no crime.

Greece's asylum and immigration system clearly needs urgent reform and the government must take swift action to address the major, long-term problem of labour exploitation. Racist attacks must be properly investigated and those responsible must be brought to justice. However, this relies on decisive action from a government that reportedly denies racism is a serious problem. In the meantime, human despair mounts.

The EU can also act to relieve the pressure on Greece as one of the main entry points to the EU for undocumented migrants. It must redraft the Dublin II regulations to share responsibility for asylum seekers more equally between member states, taking into account asylum seekers' individual needs.

There are many in Greece today who are horrified at the treatment migrants receive from the authorities, the rise in racism and xenophobia and the image this gives to the rest of the world. For them the flame of the ancient Greek concept of xenia - kindness to strangers - still burns. But across the country, it's rapidly turning into a little more than a flicker.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2979043 2013-03-29T19:00:00-04:00 2013-03-29T13:37:15-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
This was supposed to be the moment the United Nations took a truly historic step and adopted an Arms Trade Treaty.

No longer would there be a hiding place for unscrupulous individuals and states. The Treaty, if adopted, could save the lives of millions. It could stop the flow of arms into the hands of warlords, tyrants and human rights abusers. Mali, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sri Lanka are all examples of the horrific consequences of an unregulated arms trade.

But instead of a moment of history, I witnessed a moment of cynical opportunism.

The irony that the three countries who opposed the Treaty - Iran, North Korea and Syria - are under some form of sanctions, including arms embargoes, and have abysmal human rights records, having even used arms against their own citizens, was not lost on the vast majority of the delegates and observers present. The atrocities they have committed are precisely the type that the draft treaty was aimed to prevent.

There were delegates from all four corners of the globe shaking their heads in disappointment. The President of the Diplomatic Conference, the Australian Ambassador Peter Woolcott, tried desperately to revive consensus and took the unprecedented step of calling for further consultations, But it was all in vain. At 10.32pm, Iran spoke once more - and the trio of nations had their moment in the Sun.

But of course after 20 years of campaigning, we at Amnesty will not give up now. There actions should not be viewed as a defeat, but as a mere delay. The will was there. We will have an Arms Trade Treaty and soon.

Amnesty will be pushing for the United Nations General Assembly to approve the Treaty at a special session on Tuesday - a move proposed last night by Kenya. The Treaty may not get the consensus we had worked so hard to get, but it may still come into force if enough states can rally behind it. And it was particularly notable that the United States has put its weight behind ensuring the Treaty becomes a reality.

There is too much to lose. Indeed it was an Amnesty arms expert that first mooted the idea of a Treaty.

In those early days, it was Amnesty, Saferworld, the World Development Movement and the British-American Security Information Council that blazed a trail for the Treaty.

That led to the "State of the World Forum" in San Francisco in October 1996, convened by the former Costa Rican President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Óscar Arias. It was there that the campaign truly began.

Amnesty members have been at the forefront of the campaign they helped launch the Control Arms campaign in October 2003 with Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) in more than 100 countries.

Amnesty members here in the UK have been tireless in their efforts. They have repeatedly lobbied parliamentarians here to get the UK government to deliver an effective and worthwhile Treaty with human rights at its heart.

It has been a long battle and Amnesty will not give up. There has been such great progress over the years and even over the last few days there have been marked improvements.

Amnesty feared that the final draft of the Treaty would not be strong enough and would contain too many loopholes.

Before Wednesday's second draft, we were concerned that the Treaty would not be worthwhile. The first draft had huge gaps in it.

The treaty needed to include the Golden Rule. A Rule that would have assessed any proposed arms transfer to see if there is a substantial risk they would be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of human rights. If there is such a risk, the transfer would not take place. That rule was there.

Then there is the need for transparency. The world needs to know about the movement of arms. For it be effective, there needs to be a process to see where the weapons are going. That process was there.

And finally, as time moves on new weapons will be developed. The Treaty needed to be adaptable to account for these developments. It needs to be future-proofed and not frozen in time. That ability was there too.

It was not perfect. We were concerned that the scope of the treaty and that the range of equipment covered was far too narrow. But overall it was a good Treaty. It was one we approved of. So to see Iran, then North Korea, then Syria block it was heartbreaking.

It now all rests on Tuesday. And for all the years of hard-work that Amnesty members have put in, I sincerely hope that the member states will see sense and adopt the Treaty.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2905875 2013-03-19T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-19T05:12:01-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
So said Peter Benenson, a barrister working in London in the 1960s and the founder of Amnesty International. He was right of course. Right, to imagine that he was not alone in feeling angry and powerless when reading about injustice -people jailed just for speaking out against their government, or facing execution on death row.

He was also right that something could be done if enough people came together, and took 'action'.

Forty years ago today, Amnesty's first ever urgent action was issued on March 19, 1973 following the arrest of Professor Luiz Basilio Rossi, a professor of economics at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil and a trade union leader. There had been worrying reports of a clampdown on political opponents of the military dictatorship in power in Brazil at the time. On the evening of 15 February 1973 Professor Rossi's home was surrounded by military police armed with machine guns. Rossi was arrested without explanation.

His wife was confined to the house, and so had difficulty in notifying anyone about her husband's arrest. Eventually she smuggled a note to a neighbour, and the information ultimately reached Amnesty's offices in London. Concerned about reports of people being tortured during their detention in Brazil, Tracy Ultveit-Moe, a researcher at Amnesty, felt that something radical should be done to protect Professor Rossi. She pioneered the idea of suddenly inundating the Brazilian authorities with letters demanding information about Rossi, and seeking his immediate release. It proved effective.

The letters caused his captor, the Department of Public Order and Security Headquarter's Director, to comment to Professor Rossi's wife: "Your husband must be more important than we thought, because we've got all these letters from all over the world."

Professor Rossi was freed on October 24, 1973. Following his release, Rossi said he credited Amnesty's activists with securing his release. Rossi said:

"I knew that my case had become public, I knew they could no longer kill me. Then the pressure on me decreased and conditions improved."

The tenacity and forthrightness of Amnesty's founding members is truly remarkable and admirable. These were ordinary people with ordinary jobs, who appointed themselves as moonlighting human rights defenders. They picked up their pens and wrote to heads of state, demanding that they release prisoners.

It was a revolutionary new dawn, wherein normal people refused to allow diplomacy and lobbying to remain the reserve of politicians and governments. It worked. Even though the authorities did not publically accept it, bags of letters relating to political prisoners made them think again about how they would proceed.

Once a prisoner had gained international notoriety, they were protected by it, as their government could no longer sweep them under the carpet. They would have to account for what had happened to them -to Amnesty.

Just as papers continue to be filled with unjust cases, of the sort that first moved Peter Benenson to appeal for common action, I am confident that they continue to be read by people who insist on being heard. If the bad news is that we still need Amnesty 's urgent actions, the good news is, we're going strong. You can join the urgent action network at www.amnesty.org.uk/ua]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2050256 2012-10-31T19:00:00-04:00 2012-12-31T05:12:01-05:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
Both Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Zarganar - one of Burma's most famous comedians who poked fun at the government - dared to stand up and speak out for the people of Burma, and they did so knowing that they faced the prospect of abuse, harassment, arrest and long-term imprisonment. For Amnesty supporters it wasn't just a privilege to be able to stand with these and other human rights defenders, many of us saw it as a necessity.

So when Zarganar took to the stage of the Secret Policeman's Ball in New York earlier this year after having had his 59-year prison sentence commuted only a few months before, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi received Amnesty International's Ambassador of Conscience Award in Dublin, making her first visit to the UK and Ireland in nearly 25 years, not only was I honoured to meet two of the bravest human rights activists of our time, I was also reminded of the indelible impact which the support and the solidarity of Amnesty activists can have in helping to achieve enduring positive change for others.

This is why I am so delighted that Amnesty International launches its Write for Rights Campaign today. Here is a wonderful opportunity to be able to voice our support and stand with women and men much like Aung San Suu Kyi and Zarganar; women and men who have bravely dared to defend their human rights even at the risk of persecution and harassment.

Featured in this year's Campaign are the Pussy Riot duo who have been imprisoned for daring to freely express their opinion in Russia. They are currently facing years of imprisonment in arduous conditions in two separate labour colonies.

A brave young women's movement in Afghanistan called Young Women for Change also features in this year's Write for Rights Campaign, as does Azza Suleiman, a 49-year-old woman from Egypt who was seriously beaten by security forces in Tahrir Square during the uprising, after she went to the aide of another woman who was being beaten by soldiers. Azza was beaten so badly she now has a fractured skull and suffers from memory loss. This brave woman is now calling for the perpetrators of this abuse to be brought to justice, and we must stand with her.

We must also stand with Hakamada Iwao - one of the world's longest serving inmates on death row. Hakamada has languished on death row for 44 years in Japan. Amnesty considers his case to have been unfair and is calling for a commutation to his death sentence.

Watch this unforgettable short film with Jeremy Irons and you get an idea of what 44 years can mean.

The joy of meeting brave men and women like Zarganar is made all the sweeter in knowing that we have stood shoulder to shoulder with them in their darker days, even though we were thousands of miles away going about our own lives. On the days when it seemed as though there was no hope for them, Amnesty persisted in its support. Amnesty's Write for Rights Campaign gives thousands of people throughout the UK the chance to send a message of solidarity, whether it be a letter or a card of support, or taking a photo in solidarity. It will only take five minutes to take action, but the impact could last a lifetime.

The days for the likes of Azza and Hakamada may seem dark now. But I urge you to join me in standing in solidarity with them now. Because when we see the success achieved for them, the joy is all the sweeter.

Visit amnesty.org.uk/write for more information.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1951760 2012-10-09T19:00:00-04:00 2012-12-09T05:12:02-05:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
The Rwandan military's support to the M23 armed group in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo has triggered this change. The trail of abuses that the M23 has left in its wake, including forced recruitment of young adults and children and rape of women, has placed Rwanda under further scrutiny.

New research released this week by Amnesty International reveals that Rwanda's military, through its military intelligence department (J2), is also responsible for human rights violations at home. Rwanda: Shrouded in Secrecy: Illegal Detention and Torture by Military Intelligence documents 45 cases of illegal detention and 18 allegations of torture or ill-treatment by Rwandan military intelligence at military camps and secret safe houses between March 2010 and June this year.

During the research, former detainees, mostly civilians, shared jarring testimonies of their treatment at the hands of J2. They reported being subjected to serious beatings, electric shocks and sensory deprivation to force confessions.

For the families of these men, their relatives had just disappeared. Months went by without knowing if they were alive or not. They resurfaced later, many accused of threatening national security. Others were released without charge.

The time it takes for information about these abuses to seep out is alarming. It is also a testament to the success of the Rwandan authorities at compartmentalising Rwanda - running the regular prison service alongside a parallel detention system. This system within a system, with the military at the helm, is shrouded in secrecy.

When Amnesty met with the Rwandan authorities in June 2012 all officials denied torture takes place in Rwanda. They called our findings a "non-issue" or "off the mark". However, evidence against Rwanda is mounting.

In May, the UN Committee against Torture called on Rwanda to investigate reports of secret detention places and to provide information on enforced disappearances. The US State Department's 2012 human rights report documented disappearances and allegations of torture by the Rwandan security services. Closer to home, the East African Court of Justice, now led by Rwandan Justice Johnston Busingye, ruled that unlawful detention in Rwanda violated the East African Treaty.

The Rwandan authorities must take these allegations seriously. They have an obligation under Rwandan and international law to investigate and prosecute those thought to be responsible. Doing so will be an important step towards justice for victims and reduce the risk of such abuses happening again. It will also help to restore the confidence of donor countries that are increasingly concerned by human rights abuses committed by the Rwandan military in DRC and now in Rwanda itself.

Until Rwanda investigates these abuses, donor countries should suspend training and financial support to Rwandan security forces responsible for human rights abuses or else they may be helping to facilitate these abuses too.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1698425 2012-07-24T19:00:00-04:00 2012-09-23T05:12:09-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
I am eagerly hoping then that this appetite for success is rubbing off on the UK delegates over at the United Nations in New York where in just four days' time, they too could be on the verge of making history.

As Ministers Burt and Duncan recently pointed out here, the UK Government has long been a key player in calling for a robust and effective international Arms Trade Treaty. From 2006 until now, successive UK Governments have recognised that a poorly regulated international arms trade is giving way to weapons being transferred where they are being used to commit some of the worst human rights violations, and where gunrunners and illicit arms brokers are being able to operate with ease causing untold devastation.

Which is why in these final days of UN negotiations, we need the UK Government to be one of the loudest champions in the room for a strong Arms Trade Treaty.

Entering into the final week of these month-long talks, countries that are sceptical of a strong Arms Trade Treaty are digging in their heels. For example, China is doing its best to persuade other states that small arms and light weapons do not need to be included in the Treaty, while the US, China, Egypt and Iran are determined that the Treaty does not include ammunition within its scope. The US is also pushing for 'national security' considerations to prevail over human rights, a call that could allow any country to simply sidestep the Treaty and continue to supply weapons, despite there being a substantial risk such weapons will be used to facilitate serious human rights violations.

The UK voice in the midst of this critical din must remain strong. It cannot afford to falter now we're on the cusp of history being made. Ministers Burt and Duncan have indicated that there are committed to ensuring the Treaty contains the highest possible standards. And today Foreign Secretary William's commitment that the UK will not sign a weak Arms Trade Treaty text is extremely encouraging. We welcome this and urge the UK Government to remain firm. At this stage of the game, there can be no compromise. Put quite simply: thousands of lives depend on the decisions taken by the United Nations this Friday.

Now we're on the home stretch, I'm calling on the UK to deliver on this vision. Six years ago the UK Government had courage in their conviction to demand a robust Arms Trade Treaty. At that time, they were one of a handful of states banging that drum. Six years on, the UK Government must again raise a loud cry for an effective Treaty. It cannot apply compromise and cordiality at the expense of enshrining key human rights and humanitarian law principles into this important piece of global legislation.

Now really is the time for the UK to deliver. This Friday, the UK has a once-in a lifetime opportunity to make successful history - both in east London as it unveils its first London-hosted Olympics since 1948, and in New York when the world may agree to the first international Arms Trade Treaty, ever.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1532455 2012-05-21T19:00:00-04:00 2012-07-21T05:12:12-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
The Nato summit in Chicago has, once again, been discussing Afghanistan's prospects, specifically security after international troop withdrawal in 2014. As usual, the mood music has been defiantly optimistic, but my recent visit to Afghanistan has left me more anxious than ever about this fragile country's survival.

In Kabul in March I had a series of meetings with Afghan MPs, British embassy officials, Afghan human rights workers, and women and girls in a women's refuge. While there were flickers of hope, there was a lot of pessimism and even fatalism. Numerous people believe civil war after 2014 is inevitable. Meanwhile, those battling to defend human rights see even the smallest gains of the last 10 years under threat. In particular, there's a widespread belief that doing deals with the Taleban will see women and girls' rights sacrificed.

Take the touchstone issue of education. Under the anti-education Taleban only one million children were in school, of which only 50,000 were girls (those living in areas free from the Taleban). Now it's around seven million, with more than a third of these girls. However, schools in many Afghan provinces are again under direct attack by the Taleban and other armed groups. In a seven-month period in 2010 for example, 74 schools were destroyed or closed down after bombings, rocket attacks, arson, poisonings or threats. The Taleban have waged a war of fear, pinning "night letters" to people's homes warning parents not to send their daughters to school or teachers to turn up for work at "centres set up by infidels". The recent water tank contamination at a girls' school in Takhar province appears to be just the last example of this ramped-up campaign. Meanwhile, a Taleban spokesperson Qari Yousef Ahmadi has told Amnesty they aim to "close" schools where books are "printed in the USA".

The underlying worry is that the Taleban's double-pronged offensive (attacking security assets and "infidel" elements of civil society) could pay off if malignant messages around women, education and "morality" are allowed to circulate unchallenged. Women MPs and ex-MPs I spoke to expressed a view that the Afghan government no longer resists Taleban pressure on human rights, with one telling me that President Karzai has been "kidnapped by the fundamentalists".

If President Karzai hasn't been taken captive by fundamentalist forces, he is hardly inspiring confidence with endorsements of discriminatory edicts from the country's Ulema Council ("Men are fundamental and woman are secondary", it said in March) or minimising the participation of Afghan women in international meetings. Afghanistan's Peace Council, established to negotiate with the Taleban, has just nine women out of 69 members. An internationally recognised principle of rebuilding after conflict is the importance of meaningfully involving women (UN Resolution 1325), and it's disappointing that important players like the UK haven't been more insistent that women are properly represented in all talks that determine the future of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, if this is the attitude at the top then change lower down is going to be frighteningly hard to achieve. At a women's shelter I saw some of the consequences of Afghanistan's ingrained patriarchy. For example, I talked to a teenage girl married off to a 70-year-old man who then suffered sustained beatings at the hands of the man's family. I also heard from a young widow who explained how she'd escaped her father-in-law who wanted to force her into marriage after her first husband had died. There were many more stories like this, some which I can't relate for fear of identifying these vulnerable women.

One female politician told me that 90% of women and girls in Afghanistan have no control over who they marry; she also said that many families are proud of the fact that no-one outside of their immediate family has ever seen their daughters, who are kept under virtual house arrest at home. Perhaps most shockingly, at the women's shelter I was told that a recent visit by a group of women MPs had ended with the MPs denouncing the women as "prostitutes", saying they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

With the best will in the world you have to say the future is bleak. When David Cameron said recently that after 2014 there wouldn't be "perfect democracy" in Afghanistan was his bar-lowering exercise a realisation that trade-offs are being made with the Taleban even as he uttered these words? After Nato decamps from Obama's political home town of Chicago, do Afghan women have reason to fear back-room deals to sacrifice their rights in return for the Taleban's signature on a peace deal? I hope not.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1296553 2012-02-23T19:00:00-05:00 2012-04-24T05:12:02-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/ Afghanistan. They died after their vehicle triggered an explosion from a roadside bomb. One of those killed was a child. At the time of writing no-one has claimed responsibility for the killings, but it's widely presumed to be the work of the Taliban.

This is depressing on so many levels. Depressing that anyone could plant bombs apparently designed to kill civilians (an act absolutely outlawed under international law and constituting a war crime in the context of armed conflict). Depressing that these four people are just the latest statistics in an alarming increase in civilians being killed in Afghanistan (3,021 died last year, according to UN figures, 8% higher than in 2010 and 25% higher than in 2009). And it's depressing that these needless deaths in Kandahar received only cursory media mentions, with civilians dying violently in the country almost every day.

The relentless spread of violence in Afghanistan is doing more than instilling fear, hastening the withdrawal of international forces and spurring on controversial talks with the Taliban. It's also causing large-scale but barely reported demographic shifts in the country. Vast numbers of people are being uprooted, forced to flee dangerous areas and descending on towns and cities deemed safer. The population displacements aren't new - they've been occurring in conflict-stricken Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion of the 1980s (some people are in fact still displaced from that time). But the numbers are growing and the effect is a social crisis that the Afghan authorities are unwilling to confront or even acknowledge.

The scale is huge. On average, four hundred people a day are displaced in Afghanistan, about a third of these children. Overall, the country's internally displaced population totals half a million, about the same number as the entire population of Sheffield. Proportionate to Afghanistan's population (less than half the UK's), this is like the entire populations of both Sheffield ANDManchester being forced to leave their homes.

The human suffering is also on a vast scale, albeit spread across the country and of the 'silent' variety. One man in his fifties spoke for many displaced people when he told Amnesty: "We have no coupons. No water. No work. No food... We ask the international community, if you really want to help, help the poor people like us."

International NGOs are aware of the problem and trying to help but the local and national authorities in Afghanistan are at best struggling, at worst in denial and obstructive. The Kabul government routinely labels those displaced by conflict and Taliban threats 'economic migrants', saying they're no worse off than other poor people in the country. In Herat, the governor has directed all humanitarian organisations to stop using the term 'displaced' and sent letters to the UN and NGOs requesting that they cease assistance efforts. There's a similar approach in Balkh province.

Meanwhile, thousands of displaced people have in some instances congregated in huge slum communities: 35,000 people are living in one settlement in Kabul alone. The conditions are typically squalid. In one community visited by Amnesty in Herat, the latrines from the nearby mosque leaked into the ground around displaced families' homes, surrounding them with an ooze of mud and human excrement. Many are living in makeshift shacks of plastic sheeting and poles, and around three-quarters of this vast population has no access to electricity.

Needless to say, in circumstances of extreme poverty, children are being sent out to work by desperate families rather than going to school. And even when children go to school there are often bullied by local children or turned away by school officials because they don't have the correct identity documents.

The Afghan authorities are unwilling to confront the scale of the displacement problem. Their state of denial betrays a callousness toward vast human suffering. The deputy governor in Herat was particularly unfeeling about Afghanistan's most wretched: "They should come to live like ordinary citizens of Herat, not stay in those mass areas where suicide bombers can hide themselves. They should work."

· Amnesty's 'Fleeing war, finding misery: The plight of the internally displaced in Afghanistan' report is published today
· Kate Allen is visiting Afghanistan in mid-March ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1276110 2012-02-14T19:00:00-05:00 2012-04-15T05:12:01-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/ Syria is a sharp reminder of precisely why we need a strong arms trade treaty

The distressing scenes of ferocious and unrelenting military assaults on the Syrian city of Homs, are a sharp reminder that the world needs to have tougher controls on the arms trade, and urgently. Since protests began in Syria last March, Amnesty International has recorded the names of more than 5,500 people who have been killed, and the death toll rises daily.

With no UN arms embargo in place and with Russia still supplying Syria with weaponry, it is clear that the current rules regulating global arms are weak and ineffective.

It's not just in Syria where Russia is the primary provider of weapons fuelling a bloody conflict. A recent Amnesty report has revealed that Russia and China are continuing to supply attack helicopters, fighter jets, ammunition and other weapons to the Darfur region of Sudan - despite a UN arms embargo against such transactions.

More than 300,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict since the violence began there nine years ago, and in the last six months of 2011 alone more than 70,000 people were violently uprooted from their homes in eastern Darfur.

Existing arms controls around the world are simply not working. We need a new system to regulate the arms trade: one based on comprehensive rules, obligations and laws that will stop the supply of weapons in circumstances where there is a substantial risk that they will be used to commit human rights atrocities. It has never been more important for the world to deliver a robust arms trade treaty.

Crucial talks started this week at the United Nations in New York between key governments. Discussions over one of the most important treaties the world has ever seen. These talks will pave the way for final negotiations for an international arms trade treaty this July.

This historic treaty would, for the first time, regulate the global arms trade and - if implemented effectively - could prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and help stop brutal repression at the hands of the security forces in many countries.

Some countries are threatening to water down the treaty. The USA and Pakistan have called for some weapons to be excluded from the treaty's scope and some countries are attempting to dilute absolute principles which say that weapons must never be sold where there is a danger that they might be used to violate human rights.

As events unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa show, attempts to introduce grey areas into the treaty's powers are dangerous and ought to be dismissed.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and as one of the first countries to champion the need for an international arms trade treaty, the UK has a huge responsibility to ensure that it doesn't take its foot off the pedal. Amnesty is calling on the UK Government to hold fast to its commitment to ensure that a human-rights centred treaty is delivered in July.

Amnesty supporters have sent thousands of petitions to David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. Following the receipt of 7,000 emails Miliband publically renewed his commitment to a robust and effective treaty. Cameron and Clegg have so far remained silent.

The facts are clear: weapons which end up in the wrong hands cost lives, fuel bloody conflicts and enable serious human rights atrocities. We must stop arming governments such as Syria who use these weapons to kill and maim their people. This is a unique opportunity - the chance to plug the flow of weapons which are responsible for so much death and misery.

World leaders have just one shot to get this right. They simply cannot afford to miss the mark.

Go to www.amnesty.org.uk/arms
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1223885 2012-01-23T19:00:00-05:00 2012-03-24T05:12:01-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
In this utopian new age, one might expect the willingness of the government to hold UK multinationals to account for their actions overseas to be a linchpin of this new era. Similarly, when these companies harm people and the environment, responsible capitalism should enable them to gain access to justice.

Not so. Indeed, quite the reverse. Changes to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that are due to be debated this week will place justice beyond the reach of individuals and communities who are the victims of human rights abuses, and who wish to take on these goliath corporations. In essence, the government is proposing changes that will tip the civil litigation scales against victims and in favour of companies to the extent that they are being handed a carte blanche to operate with impunity around the world.

The government is proposing to take lawyers' success fees from claimants' damages, instead of from defendants and to make claimants' insurance premiums non-recoverable. This will have the effect of making cases financially unviable for both the law firm and - more importantly - the victim. The ability of the law firm to take on such cases will be significantly reduced, and the victims' compensation will be whittled away on legal expenses that should be borne by the company.

We are not talking about reams of cases, as there have been very few over the last decade - ten altogether - all of which were settled out of court. Under the proposed reforms, the structure of costs between the complainant and the defendant is changing in favour of the defendant, which will make it even less likely that complainants will find affordable legal representation to take on well-resourced multinational corporations. These moves will serve to tip the balance in favour of huge companies and away from the victims. This seems to run entirely contrary to what the Prime Minister is promising - fairness and a level playing field. This unfair bias, will come at no saving to the public purse. We are not talking about publically subsidised legal representation, but the ability to obtain costs from the defendant if the case is won. On every level it is hard to fathom how such a move can be justified, or cast as progressive.

Victims of harm committed by UK multinational corporations while operating overseas, are one group of complainants that have been completely disregarded in Lord Jackson's proposals for reform of civil litigation costs. We are talking about victims such as those of illegal toxic waste-dumping in Ivory Coast, who sought justice through the UK courts. The company concerned, Trafigura, eventually agreed to settle with the victims out of court. Or the 69,000 people living in Bodo, Nigeria, who would not have been able to pursue a case against Shell, who recently admitted full culpability for two massive oil spills in the region that have caused livelihoods to be devastated, food and water sources to be contaminated, and widespread health problems.

Before the case was pursued through the UK courts, Shell offered the Bodo community "£3,500 together with 50 bags of rice, 50 bags of beans and a few cartons of sugar, tomatoes and groundnut oil", a pitiful remedy in light of the company's profits of £11.5 billion in 2010. It is vitally important that the victims of such abuses are able to access justice and obtain redress. A failure to ensure this would not only deny these victims a remedy but would fuel a cycle of impunity, as the risk of civil litigation currently acts as a deterrent.

If the Prime Minister is serious about 'responsible capitalism', then it would be completely counter-intuitive to constrain access to justice in this way. Not only would it fly in the face of his stated aspirations, but it would create every encouragement for companies to abuse human rights and the environment in their overseas operations, safe in the knowledge that their victims will be unable to pursue legal action against them. This Parliamentary Bill has become the litmus test of the government's true intentions.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1107298 2011-11-22T08:11:24-05:00 2012-01-22T05:12:01-05:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
The severity of the security forces' response to demonstrators in Tahrir Square these past days has laid bare the huge divisions between most ordinary Egyptians and the military elite running the country.

The main charge from the protestors is that nine months of effective rule by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has essentially led to a revolution stillborn. By any measure, the protestors have a point.

A new report from Amnesty today summarises some of the many failings of SCAF rule.

These include: massive use of military trials for civilians (12,000 cases in the first six months alone), a new law criminalising strikes (Law 34), moves to intimidate journalists, including bloggers, expansion of the much-criticised Emergency Law widely used under Hosni Mubarak's presidency, extremely violent and reckless methods to suppress protesters (including armoured vehicles being driven at unarmed people in the street), the torture of people in detention, including with electric cattle prods and with "virginity tests" for women and the political sidelining of women.

Any one of these taken singly would be cause for genuine concern. Taken together they amount to a massive betrayal of the hopes of the '25 January' revolution.

On 13 February, just two days after the 'Day of Departure' and Mubarak's resignation, the SCAF issued this ringing proclamation:

"The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces believes that human freedom, the rule of law, support for the value of equality, pluralistic democracy, social justice, and the uprooting of corruption are the bases [sic] for the legitimacy of any system of governance that will lead the country in the upcoming period".

Fine words, but it is frankly impossible to square these sentiments with the reality of the three-quarters of a year that has now elapsed in Egypt since Mubarak went.

Two cases - out of thousands - help spell out the human impact of all this.

On 10 April, the well-known blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad, was sentenced by a military court to three years in prison for his criticism of the military's use of force against protesters in Tahrir Square and his objection to military service. In October, a military appeals court ordered his retrial; he continues to be detained and has now been on hunger strike for a full two months (it began on 23 August).

Meanwhile, on 1 March, a 32-year-old man called Amr Abdallah Al-Beheiry was sentenced by a military court to five years on charges of breaking a curfew and assaulting a public official.

He had been arrested three days earlier when military police and the army broke up a protest outside the parliament building in Cairo. During this crackdown (which came just two weeks after Mubarak's exit), numerous protesters were arrested and subjected to beatings and electric shocks.

All of these were later released, but Amr was rearrested shortly afterwards, apparently because protesters had filmed his injuries. His trial lasted just a few minutes and the court refused to allow the lawyer his family had chosen into the session, instead assigning its own lawyer to the case.

He was then transferred to Wadi El-Gedid Prison, where Amr told his brother that he and other prisoners were beaten and not allowed to leave their cells, except once a day to use the toilet. He is currently serving his sentence in Wadi El-Natroun Prison, where he's been placed with prisoners convicted of murder, drug-trafficking and other serious crimes.

At some fundamental level, the senior echelons of Egypt's armed forced seem unable to grasp the essentials of a pluralistic state which respects human rights. For example, in July a SCAF member, Major-General Mamdouh Shaheen, said "anyone who discusses something related to the armed forces without written consent from the general command of the armed forces is considered as having committed a crime and is referred to the Military Prosecution."

He continued, "but the Military Prosecution does not confiscate thoughts or opinions and did not try anyone for his views or opinions, only people who have violated the secrecy of the armed forces are tried."

Meanwhile, in May, a general who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, tried to justify subjecting women protesters to virginity tests (something the military had originally denied took place). He said "The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine. These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and [drugs]". Moreover, he said "We didn't want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren't virgins in the first place. None of them were [virgins]."

Sadly these military voices seem to reflect a wider official disdain for the people from a powerful organisation that has claimed - with less and less credibility - to be acting in the interests of all Egyptians.

The army and the people are certainly no longer one. Indeed the euphoria of Egypt's 25 January uprising has been replaced by fears that one repressive rule has simply been replaced with another.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1020479 2011-10-19T19:00:00-04:00 2011-12-19T05:12:01-05:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
Basildon Council are not merely undertaking a "site clearance", as commentators and politicians have tried to cast it, it is undoubtedly a forced eviction that will leave families homeless and vulnerable to further human rights violations. Dale Farm residents are fearful about the widespread prejudice and harassment they face, and whether they would be able to find somewhere safe to live and send their children to school. Given the outpouring of vitriol that has been directed at the Dale Farm community since the plight of the residents became the subject of media attention, their caution is hardly surprising.

What is being undertaken at Dale Farm in Essex, is the dismantling of a community of families, that much we know. We know it from the hastily erected signs which plead "where will we go?" and "we have no home" and "don't split us up". It is the we and the us which indicates the collective nature of the society of families. The number of families which is formally estimated as living at Dale Farm is around 80, but the residents classify themselves as just four large close-knit families, who make up one cohesive community.

Housing is a human right and cultural adequacy is one of its core components. While Basildon Council did offer some Dale Farm residents bricks and mortar housing many Gypsy and Traveller communities do not consider bricks and mortar housing would adequately enable them to maintain their way of life. If Traveller families at Dale Farm had been given planning permission, or provided with an alternative site where they could continue to live as a community their children could have continued with their schooling, the seriously ill and young children could get regular healthcare. The sad reality is that the Dale Farm families being evicted have been failed by the Council at every turn; in inadequate consultation, insufficient negotiation and in the woeful failure to offer culturally adequate alternative accommodation, to which they are entitled.

Not so long ago there was hope. Many of us believed that good sense would prevail and Basildon Council would negotiate a settlement with Dale Farm residents and avoid a forced eviction. Unfortunately, on the morning of 19 October Basildon Council initiated a forced eviction on an unprecedented scale. One can only wonder where the Dale families will go and how long it will be before they are evicted again.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.950046 2011-09-06T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-06T05:12:02-05:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/
In response to the recent riots, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke wrote of a "feral underclass" who required "robust punishment", echoing elements of his colleague, the education secretary Michael Gove last week, who spoke about the need to discipline an "underclass" and to ensure teachers had absolute authority.

It is entirely predictable that politicians have rushed to such arguments given the climate of panic that the riots left in their wake, but staunchly asserting that what is needed is tighter control within the school gates, does not address the conduct of children when they are out of school.

To make a meaningful and lasting impact on children, which endures beyond the time when they are being controlled through discipline or the threat of retribution, we must consider what we are equipping them with in the classroom and what it is we intend them to depart with.

David Cameron has spoken of the "twisting and misrepresenting of human rights that has undermined personal responsibility." So the last thing you would expect would be the removal of the one statutory National Curriculum subject which teaches school children about the link between rights and responsibilities.

A subject that arms children with knowledge about what they can expect from their society and government and what is expected of them. After the events we have witnessed one might suppose that the government would ensure that such a subject was being taught consistently well and placed at the heart of the curriculum. Instead that subject, Citizenship, is at risk of being dropped from the curriculum altogether.

Citizenship ensures that young people learn about our democratic, political, legal and economic systems - all of which are vitally important in helping young people to understand their role in society.

There is a false dichotomy being put about, which suggests that rights and responsibilities are some sort of either/or pay off. They are not. Indeed, it is vital that the two coexist. Children need to be taught about the rights of others, every bit as much as their own rights. That so many of the basic entitlements of others were trampled under foot during the riots, is testament to the fact that we need to up our game in informing people about both duty and due. As well as the co-dependence of the two.

Of course, Citizenship education has to be taught well, by trained specialist teachers, who can support their students to make the connection between human rights and everyday life so that they become useful tools which they take with them into all aspects of their lives, as intrinsically necessary as language and clothing. Teaching children about rights is not an abstract opt-in theory, but among the founding values of what it means to be human and to participate in the world around you.

It is vital that we introduce all young people to the rights contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, such as 'the right to feel safe and secure' as well as 'the right to participate in decisions affecting one's life'. Learning about these rights, which are at once individual and shared amongst the collective, is the first vital step in fostering a sense of community in which every member plays a part and to which we all belong.

It is equally vital that students learn that human rights do not include the right to an i-pod or the latest trainers. That there is no right to take. Indeed, the current Citizenship curriculum introduces the concept of balancing rights - enabling young people to understand that whilst human rights are universal, in a society that values justice an individual's rights have to be balanced against the rights of others in the community: it is legitimate to limit your right to participate in society if your doing so infringes the right of others to live in safety.

In the context of the recent riots, Citizenship lessons are the ideal, and indeed the only, place where teachers are able to conduct discussions of the cause and the consequences of recent events. It will be decades before they make it onto the history curriculum. Without an overt and clear place to foreground these matters within the school timetable, they will end up being enforced through behavioural codes in a way that inevitably perpetuates the perceived exclusion of those who behave less well.

In contrast to a response to the riots that says 'we must empower teachers to be more disciplinarian, this country is losing its moral fibre' we should use human rights to illustrate the power of liberation and order, rather than simply applying order until liberated from the school gates.

It is vital that Citizenship be retained as a statutory subject - an entitlement for all pupils and students - in the current curriculum review. The loss of the subject would be not only a tragedy for school children in England, but it would also be an entirely self-contradictory and self-defeating move from a government which aspires to lead and mend society.

About Democratic Life

Democratic Life is a coalition of organisations and individuals in the UK seeking to strengthen and extend young people's entitlement to high-quality Citizenship education in England. Members include: Amnesty International UK, The Citizenship Foundation, The Association of Citizenship Teaching, The Hansard Society, The Institute for Global Ethics UK Trust, Involver, The United Nations Association and The Law Society.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.891949 2011-07-07T03:10:41-04:00 2011-09-05T05:12:01-04:00

Kate Allen http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-allen/ Jimmy Mubenga died in tragic circumstances on a flight to Angola from Heathrow - is in need of radical reform.

Private security contractors carrying out forced removals are badly trained and unaccountable. They have used dangerous 'control and restraint' techniques which have led to numerous people alleging ill-treatment. These techniques appear to have resulted in Jimmy Mubenga's death. His widow, Adrienne, is now bringing up their five children without a father. She has joined today with Amnesty International to demand a complete overhaul of the system of forced removals from the UK.

Her husband Jimmy would, she believes, still be alive today if someone independent had been on that flight to monitor how he was being treated. Witnesses said he was screaming "I can't breathe, I can't breathe". But they were just passengers on a commercial flight and had no idea what was happening or whether they should intervene. We're calling for independent monitors on every forced removal flight.

The training of these private contractors also needs a radical overhaul. Our researchers spoke to people who have carried out removals for these companies. They told us that contractors were going on these flights without the required training, yet they were accredited by the Home Office all the same. Training in the safe use of handcuffs - which can cause real pain and damage when wrongly used - is not mandatory. And there's no specific training in how to restrain people safely in the very particular situation on board an aircraft, leading to the use of dangerous techniques that put people's lives at risk.

"Carpet karaoke" is one of these techniques. It earned its nickname among contractors because the detainee's face is forced into the aircraft's carpet, causing them to scream 'like a bad karaoke singer'. They are handcuffed, with a tight seatbelt through the cuffs and their head pushed down between their legs, wedged behind the seat in front. There is a serious risk that people can die when this technique is used.

When Joy Gardener died in 1993 during an enforced removal from the UK, people were shocked at the brutal way she was treated by the police. I remember hearing a poem read by Benjamin Zephaniah about her death as police pinned her to the floor and metres of tape were wound round her. The death of Jimmy Mubenga should be a similar wake-up call to the Home Office.

We're asking people to go to www.amnesty.org.uk/removal and write to Home Secretary Theresa May and urge her to bring forced removals, and the private companies that conduct them, under control. All UK removals should be monitored by an independent body which accompanies and reports on all stages of the removal process. Training needs to be significantly improved, with rigorous checks that staff have received the required level of training before they are allowed to accompany detainees. Better training and independent monitoring also protects the contractors themselves from injury and from allegations of improper treatment.

To improve accountability, all complaints should be investigated by an independent body - not by the company itself and the UK Border Agency, as is current practice.
And companies should not be allowed to sub-contract removals work out to third companies, as reportedly happens today.

The Government should look carefully at the experience of other EU countries. In Germany and France the state uses its own law enforcement personnel for this work. The German experience, where independent monitors are in place on each flight, suggests that allegations of harm during removals can be significantly reduced.

Our report doesn't oppose forced removals per se - we acknowledge that the UK does need to forcibly remove some people from the country. But removals should be conducted safely and those being removed should be treated humanely. They are still people, after all.

Benjamin Zephaniah's poem was published 15 years ago and was written about a mother, not a father like Jimmy Mubenga. But its sentiment, embodied in these lines, applies as much today and to anyone facing removal from this country, as it did back then:

No matter what the law may say
A mother should not die this way
Let human rights come into play
And to everyone apply.
]]>