Daily Brief Audio Series
Political theater is pretty much unavoidable in the run-up to a US presidential election. But sometimes, it’s more than just attention-grabbing and descends to the level of an assault on human rights.
US President Joe Biden’s executive order on asylum this week definitely crosses that line.
Before we get into the specifics, let’s recall the fundamentals here, because I find that when people start talking about asylum these days, one core fact often gets overlooked.
It’s this: Everyone has the right to seek asylum in another country. This does not mean that anyone can just live wherever they want. No. It means you have the right to ask for asylum, and the authorities should consider your individual case and treat you humanely in the meantime. US law guarantees this right, and it’s also supported by international human rights and refugee law.
Biden’s executive order on Tuesday flew in the face of this fundamental right.
It enables border officials to rapidly remove (without so much as a hearing) people who arrive in the US at the southern border under certain conditions, specifically when the number of arrivals at the border exceeds a seven-day average of 2,500 people.
Why 2,500? Who knows? It’s a completely arbitrary number – pulled out of a hat.
Officials would then not reopen the border until the average number of daily arrivals drops below 1,500 people. Again, a number out of a hat.
This would shut down the US-Mexico border to asylum seekers. The executive order is clearly unlawful under international human rights and refugee law.
It also risks exposing thousands of people to serious dangers.
We talked about the dangers a few weeks ago, when we looked at US border authorities “digitally metering” asylum claims using an app. Folks seeking asylum in the US who are forced to wait in Mexico are exposed to risks of rape, kidnapping, torture, and murder.
Biden’s new executive order will only add to the number of people facing these horrors.
This executive order is all about politics and the presidential election, to be sure. It’s political theater, in which candidates want to appear “tough” on border issues, regardless of the suffering their policies and policy proposals will cause.
But whenever you see a new policy described as “tough,” try this: replace the word “tough” with “cruel.” You’ll then likely better understand what’s going on at the human level.
The Israeli military has been using white phosphorus in Gaza and south Lebanon. There’s a lot of confusion out there about white phosphorus, so let’s look at what it is, what it isn’t, and how it’s problematic.
White phosphorus is a chemical substance, dispersed in artillery shells, bombs, and rockets. When exposed to oxygen, it ignites, and the chemical reaction produces intense heat (815°C, 1500°F), light, and thick smoke. It is commonly used as a military tool to create a smokescreen to obscure military operations, or to make enemy targeting more difficult, or mark enemy targets.
It also inflicts appalling injuries when it comes in contact with people. White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon, because it operates primarily by heat and flame rather than toxicity, but its impact on the human body is nonetheless horrific.
It causes severe burns, often down to the bone, and burns on only ten percent of the body are often fatal. It can also cause respiratory damage and organ failure. Survivors often experience a lifetime of suffering.
White phosphorus can be burst over or on an area at different heights. When released on or near the ground, the area immediately affected is generally smaller. When airburst, however, white phosphorus covers a larger area and spreads its incendiary effects more widely. If an airburst is over a populated area, the risks to civilians are obvious.
White phosphorus is not specifically banned by international humanitarian law. However, like all actions in a conflict, its use is still bound by the laws of war, whose core concept is that all parties to a conflict must distinguish, at all times, between combatants and civilians. The law requires all parties to take all feasible precautions to minimise harm to civilians and civilian objects.
Using airburst white phosphorus is unlawfully indiscriminate in populated areas and otherwise does not meet this legal requirement to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm. White phosphorus doesn’t discriminate, falling on military opponents and civilians alike.
This brings us to Israel’s actions in Gaza and south Lebanon. We’ve written about this before, but a new report further documents Israel’s widespread use of white phosphorus in south Lebanon since October. This includes at least five municipalities where white phosphorus munitions were unlawfully airburst over populated residential areas, putting civilians at grave risk.
So, what’s to be done?
In the immediate term, Israel should prohibit all use of airburst white phosphorus munitions in populated areas. Israel has already developed different munitions as a replacement, so why aren’t they using them?
Lebanon, for its part, should turn to the International Criminal Court and enable the investigation and prosecution of grave international crimes on Lebanese territory since October.
And in the longer term and globally, stronger international standards are needed against the use of white phosphorus. We should work to protect civilians everywhere from the harmful effects of incendiary weapons.
What follows is a noteworthy success story. But should it be?
Seeing that the authorities in Iraq were not upholding laws ensuring employment rights for people with disabilities, some folks decided to take matters into their own hands.
Activist Muwafaq al-Khafaji runs workshops to educate employers on employment rights for people with disabilities. He also encourages them to hire people with disabilities.
After one such workshop, a man named Muhammed Ali al-Mayahi decided to heed the call. Al-Mayahi is CEO of the Bab al-Agha Bakeries in Baghdad. (They have a gorgeous website, by the way.)
First, he hired five deaf employees. When he saw they were doing well, he hired more, and then still more. Today, they have almost 30 deaf employees.
In Al-Mayahi’s words: “Their competence and energy are very high. We must ensure that these people can live their lives just as everyone else here in Iraq. I hope that all companies will follow our example.”
Deaf employees at the bakery say their employment has had a hugely positive impact on their lives.
“Since I was hired here, my life has changed,” Shaima, 24, said. “Today, I can communicate with people, make a living, and rely on myself.”
It’s a success story, sure, but it shouldn’t be anything unusual. Of course, deaf folks and other people with disabilities can work in a bakery and do countless other jobs. There shouldn’t even be a story here.
In Iraq, however, it is a noteworthy story, because it’s exceptional. But it wouldn’t be exceptional, if the authorities implemented the law.
Federal Iraqi law allocates five percent of public sector jobs and three percent of private sector jobs to people with disabilities. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq has a similar law.
These laws have been around for more than a decade – plenty of time for employers to get on board and for authorities to enforce them.
And yet, while the federal law allows for fines against private sector employers who fail to comply with the three percent quota, no fines have ever been issued.
The result is, employment quotas are not being met, leaving hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with disabilities unemployed. Remember, too, Iraq has one of the largest populations of people with disabilities in the world.
In short, Iraqis with disabilities are willing and able to work. If only the authorities were as willing to do their job of enforcing the law.
“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”
The observation by novelist Milan Kundera was initially about the situation in Communist Czechoslovakia, where politicians who fell from grace with the ruling party were airbrushed out of old photographs. The true historical record thereafter existed only in the memories of individuals.
On the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre in China, the struggle between memory and forgetting looms large.
First, let us remember what happened. In spring 1989, there were peaceful gatherings of students, workers, and others in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square and other Chinese cities. People called for freedom of expression, accountability, and an end to corruption.
The government responded to the growing protests by declaring martial law, and then, on June 3 and 4, the military opened fire and killed untold numbers of peaceful protesters and bystanders.
After the killings, the government launched a massive crackdown and arrested thousands. The government has never accepted responsibility for the massacre or held any officials legally accountable for the killings. No investigations, no list of the names of the dead. Nothing.
The ruling Communist Party has spent the last three and a half decades trying to silence all mention of the massacre. They suppress any hint of discussion or commemoration in both China and Hong Kong, but those who remember continue to push back.
In April of this year, Xu Guang, a 1989 student leader, was sentenced to four years in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” after he demanded in 2022 the Chinese government acknowledge the Tiananmen Massacre. Xu was reportedly tortured in detention.
In recent weeks, authorities have stepped up police surveillance of relatives of victims of the massacre, and others connected to the 1989 democracy movement. Some activists have been forcibly taken from their homes.
Last week, Hong Kong police arrested seven people for so-called “seditious” posts regarding an “upcoming sensitive date.”
Regime threats and violence against those who remember make clear the events of 35 years ago are still highly relevant today. And the more China’s authorities attempt to suppress memory, the more they show just how frightened they are of its power.
The stage finally seems set for the deployment of an international mission to Haiti.
We’ve looked at Haiti’s collapse into chaos in the Daily Brief before, and we’ve explained the need for an international mission to address it. We’ve also detailed how the Multinational Security Support mission (MSS), authorized by the UN Security Council in October, has faced delays in getting boots on the ground.
But the Kenyan-led MSS mission is expected in Haiti soon, after a Kenyan delegation arrived there last week. What’s more, Kenyan President William Ruto recently met in Washington with US President Joe Biden, who pledged more support to the mission.
This is encouraging news for people in Haiti.
The MSS mission is tasked with assisting Haitian police in rolling back the extreme turmoil in the country’s capital, Port-au-Prince. They will help police secure key infrastructure and fight the criminal groups that currently control nearly all of the city and that are responsible for widespread abuses.
At least three questions remain, however, especially when you recall the failures and abuses of past international responses in Haiti.
First, are the countries involved taking sufficient steps to ensure the MSS mission respects human rights?
Haitian police will oversee the operation, and the national security council will define and supervise the mission’s assistance. The US government says it’s vetting all MSS personnel as required by US law. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is collaborating on the design of the mission’s regulatory framework.
However, the UN Security Council has yet to receive critical – and required – information from the MSS mission on things like their rules of engagement, on human rights safeguards, and on accountability mechanisms.
What will happen, for example, if allegations emerge of abuses by Haitian National Police or MSS personnel? How can people report it, and how will it be investigated independently? Details like these need to be clear.
Second, what about the legal hurdles the MSS mission still faces? These include a January decision by Kenya’s High Court, finding the order to deploy police officers to Haiti unconstitutional. An appeal on that is pending, and a new lawsuit on the same grounds is scheduled for June.
Third, there’s a serious question about money. The mission’s trust fund has received only US$21 million. That’s far below the estimated initial operational costs of US$600 million.
Governments, especially the US, France, and those from Latin America and the Caribbean, should ensure the mission has what it needs.
Haitians urgently need international support to restore security, and it’s essential the job is done right – that means, with respect for human rights.