Election campaigns anywhere always bring heightened tensions, but the US vote on November 8 seems to be particularly fraught.

Many officials responsible for administering free and fair elections in the US have faced harassment and even death threats since the 2020 election.

In some states, armed individuals stood outside ballot counting centers in the days after the 2020 vote. (If you’ve got a gun, you’re not trying to protest or monitor anything. You’re trying to intimidate people.)

Already in 2021, Reuters documented 100 cases of threats of death or violence made to US election workers and officials.

A US Justice Department task force, in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reported in August 2022 that it had reviewed more than 1,000 reports of hostile or harassing incidents against election workers.

In part, this new wave of threats – what the Reuters study called an “unprecedented campaign of intimidation” – has been sparked by false claims by former President Donald Trump and his supporters that there was a conspiracy to deprive him of the presidency.

There is absolutely no evidence of any such conspiracy, of course, but the dangers this false belief presents are very real.

With election officials themselves under threat, US authorities must now urgently ensure voters, poll workers, and civic groups can participate freely in the electoral process, without fear or intimidation.

What this means is that officials at all levels, as well as candidates, need to publicly condemn groups and individuals seeking to intimidate, incite, or engage in violence. Authorities should act preventively, in particular near polling places and during protests. Law enforcement authorities need to thoroughly investigate and prosecute offenses.

Everyone entitled to vote on November 8 should be able to do so without fear. A threat against voters is a threat to democracy.

The name of the new “Declaration on the Protection of Civilians from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas” might be a bit long, but at least it’s not complicated.

We could nickname it the “let’s not blow stuff up around people” agreement, if that makes it clearer.

In any case, the declaration is a good idea.

You probably don’t need much convincing that the bombing and shelling of cities and towns is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly, it’s one of the greatest threats to civilians in contemporary armed conflict.

The horror of explosive weapons in populated areas is not just the immediate deaths and injuries caused. It’s also the long-term psychological harm, as well as the destruction of homes and critical civilian infrastructure, such as power plants, healthcare facilities, and water and sanitation systems.

Under the new declaration – which was finalized in June and which governments from around the world will start endorsing on November 18 – countries agree to adopt and implement policies and practices that aim to avoid civilian harm by “restricting or refraining from” the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

I hear the doubters wondering: nice idea, but will it actually work?

Arms experts from HRW and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic – that is, people with decades of technical and legal experience in the field – believe that it will. In a joint report, they deem the new declaration a “valuable tool to safeguard civilians.”

Of course, they also note it’s critical what comes next: how governments interpret the document going forward.

Just trust us, and don’t ask questions – or else!

That’s pretty much the message from Kyrgyzstan authorities when it comes to the impending transfer of a dam to Uzbekistan as part of deal to demarcate the border.

The agreement between the neighboring countries remains secret, and anyone who complains about it is in for trouble.

More than 20 people in Kyrgyzstan were detained Sunday and placed under arrest for 48 hours, after publicly disagreeing with the deal. The next day, courts ordered several of them be held in pre-trial detention for two months.

Those detained have included activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, and politicians.

In one particularly low move, police took wiretapped conversations of the accused and edited them to make it sound like people were trying to overthrow the government. Then, even lower, the wiretapped montage was leaked to social media.

Kyrgyz authorities are hardly going to calm public concerns about water access with such underhanded methods.

(compiled today by Lisa Maier)

• Brazil struggles to tame misinformation ahead of October 30 elections (Al Jazeera) 
• European migration routes: more than 5,000 deaths recorded since 2021 (IOM) 
• Canadian tribunal rejects historic Indigenous children compensation deal (Le Monde, English) 
• Climate crisis: pledges are falling short, a chaotic future looks like reality (NY Times) 

Ahead of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, LGBT Qataris are raising the alarm on abuses they have endured by security forces.

Join us today (11h00 ET; 17h00 CET) for a Twitter Space with experts on what’s at stake. (As always, you can use the same link to listen to the recording if you miss it live)

HRW’s Acting Executive Director Tirana Hassan will be speaking at a high-profile UN headquarters event, following up on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ groundbreaking report on Xinjiang.

Join us today (13h15 ET; 19h15 CET) for the webcast here.

I’d like to add an occasional section to this newsletter called, “On Our Terms,” to try to demystify some of the language HRW uses for people who don’t spend every waking hour living and breathing this stuff. Let’s start with: impunity.

“Impunity” is not a very common word, I’m afraid, which is a bit of a shame, because it really captures so much of what’s wrong with the world today.

The dictionary definition – “exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action” – won’t help popularize the word either. It’s an explanation that sounds as legalistic as the word itself.

But if you translate that definition of “impunity” into human English, things get more interesting…

“Impunity” basically means getting away with murder.

Or some other crime.

Some people in power commit crimes – it could be corruption, it could be killing protesters – and they get away with those crimes for one reason or another.

Maybe it’s because the police are corrupt, too, and don’t investigate. Maybe it’s because the courts are politicized and never try, or convict, powerful people. Maybe it’s because the danger of speaking out against crimes is too great for most people to risk it.

Maybe it’s also because the outside world doesn’t care and thus lets a leader get away with crimes in their country.

Whatever the reason, the powerful figure who’s committed the crime faces no damaging consequences for their actions. No one holds them accountable.

Most importantly, what does that person learn from their experience of getting away with it? They learn that they can commit the same crime again and get away with it again. The unpunished abuser will commit further abuses.

That’s “impunity.” And that’s why it’s so dangerous.

As I say, it’s weird that “impunity” is not a more common word, seeing as how central the underlying concept is to so many of our problems. Maybe we should all try to change that?

Impunity: try using it in a sentence today.