Culturally Combating Da'esh

WILL YELDHAM

He saw life as a saga. All the events in it were significant: all personages in contact with him heroic. His mind was stored with poems of old raids and epic tales of fights, and he overflowed with them on the nearest listener. - T.E Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom

T.E Lawrence's description of Auda, a desert warlord, homeless but armed with poems and stories, resonates with the essential function of Jihadi poetry in creating a sense of cultural identity within Da'esh, the organisation that calls itself 'Islamic State'.  Admittedly, Lawrence was writing in an entirely different, and importantly less religiously radicalised society, however, he frequently notes how essential culture and particularly poetry was to an essentially nomadic people. Whilst Da'esh's rapid expansion, declaration of a 'caliphate' and alleged issue of passports seem to propose a strong sense of state identity this is flawed. Its success is fundamentally based upon military victory, for example the capture of Mosul was touted as a clear sign of God's favour, however, as they encounter more organised resistance in the form of the Iraqi Military and a reinvigorated Kurdish force this is waning. In its place a fledgling cultural identity is forming and presents an essential target for attack. There are many admirable initiatives rewriting and poking fun at Da'esh and the exaggerated culture it's weaving but more must be done to undermine the dangerously attractive image it presents that not only strengthens it internally but allures potential foreign fighters.

A principle player in fostering Da'esh's poetry is Ahlam-al-Nasr, whose collection 'The Blaze of Truth' was published online last summer and circulated extremely quickly through militant networks. Known as 'The Poetess of Da'esh' she's the closest thing to a literary celebrity that Da'esh can hold and she provides a powerful rallying call. Indeed in February she wrote a 30 page essay defending the leadership's decision to burn the Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh. In a recent article in the New Yorker Robyn Creswell and Bernard Haykel comprehensively dissect a number of the collections 107 poems and consider their cultural impact. They noted the importance of her recent marriage  to Abu Usama al-Gharib, a Vienna-born jihadi close to the movements leadership which was reported on numerous Da'esh-affiliated twitter accounts. However the celebrations of nuptial bliss also mark the creation of media power couple as Al-Gharib is a veteran propagandist, initially for al-Qaeda and now for Da'esh. 

Political Poetry 

To get an idea of the importance of Jihadi poetry in fostering Da'esh's identity we must examine both its roots in traditional Arab poetry and its politicisation in the Arab Spring.  The poems Lawrence frequently encountered were the latest in a long tradition based in a oral culture. The earliest poems were written primarily in monorhyme, for easy memorisation, and functioned as historical record. By celebrating famous victories, lamenting the fallen, celebrating love and degrading their enemies they fostered a culture of romance and more importantly gave a fixed identity within it. Even now television shows such as the UAE-based 'Sha'ir al-Milyoon', or 'Millionaire Poet',  in which poets compete along the lines of American Idol for enormous prizes, continue to celebrate this oral tradition. The political dimension of this poetry is  paramount - indeed the 2010 winner of 'Millionaire Poet' delivered a piece fiercely critical of hard-line Saudi clerics. The most obvious example of poetry's political use is in the Arab Spring. During the Egyptian revolution lines from an early 20th century Tunisian poem by Abul-Qasim al Shabi were chanted, recitals broke out nightly and poetry was a catalyst for staying inciting cohesive resistance. An Al-Jazeera correspondent reported that protestors were chanting throughout the evening. He commented ‘There’ve been poetry readings. It seems as if they’re saying, “It’s early in the morning but we’re here to stay. We’re not going anywhere".' Indeed, Nasser Farghaly, an Egyptian filmmaker, poet and writer, recently spoke to Granta about the use of poems as a tool for political movement in modern Arabic poetry:

"The dialectic that has characterised the Arabic contemporary poetry scene for the last fifty years was very evident in the revolution; this is the dialectic of revolution in poetry, or revolution by poetry."

A State - or a State in Our Eyes 

The poems that are chanted by Da'esh militants now may be different but they serve the same function of social cohesion. 'The Poetess of Da'esh' herself began her poetic career penning verses in support of the protests to oust Bashar al-Assad in 2011. Since then her work has become progressively more Islamist and extremist.  Celebrating the symbolic capture of Mosul she wrote

Ask Mosul, city of Islam, about the lions—

How their fierce struggle brought liberation.

The land of glory has shed its humiliation and defeat

And put on the raiment of splendour.

By repeatedly portraying Da'esh in paradisal language she is balming an integral existential anxiety within it. Surrounded by enemies on all sides and pounded by coalition bombing, the identity of Da'esh lies less in its fluctuating borders than the imaginative fantasy realm of the 'Caliphate'. By exploiting the rich oral tradition of Arabic poetry they are in effect hijacking a cohesive cultural identity for themselves and appropriating the societal roots they lack.  Robyn Creswell and Bernard Haykel make the important distinction between Ahlam's poems and other like it and videos of beheadings and burnings. The graphic atrocities 'are made primarily for foreign consumption' whereas 'poetry provides a window onto the movement talking to itself. It is in verse that militants most clearly articulate the fantasy life of jihad'. 

Da'esh itself has a troubled relationship with the idea of 'statehood'. In the early summer of 2014 Abu Bakr al-Bhagdadi declared 'Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis. The land is for the Muslims, all Muslims', thus disavowing traditional notions of statehood which typically find their model in a Westphalian secular system. However, in some respects Da'esh is behaving very much like a state. Indeed, a comprehensive study by Charles C. Caris & Samuel Reynolds for the institute of war examined how it 'has built a holistic system of governance that includes religious, educational, judicial, security, humanitarian, and infrastructure projects, among others'. Admittedly these initiatives were largely centred around the stronghold of Raqqa but the resemblance to organized statehood is striking and this is also reflected in its governing structure. Beneath him, al-Baghdadi has a chief advisor on Syria and a chief advisor on Iraq, each of whom lead 5-7 governors. There are nine councils, including the Leadership Council, the Shore Council, the Military Council, the Legal Council, the Fighters’ Assistance Council, the Financial Council, the Intelligence Council, the Security Council, and the Media Council. Thus it's clear that Da'esh is striving after a kind of sovereignty and statehood whilst simultaneously rejecting traditional, or at least Western, definitions of them. This is reflected in the names they employ. On the one hand, they use the term khalifah, a religious term far older than the 19th century nation state, to refer to Bhagdadi. This proclaims him the leader of the entire Muslim community across the world thus disregarding traditional state boundaries and national identities in favour of religion. On the other, they call themselves 'Dawlah' a term originating in the 10th century but used more recently to describe a sovereign state with the panoply of statehood. In this way Is both subscribes to and frustrates Western conceptions of secular statehood. Da'esh claims sovereignty for its 'caliphate' yet rejects the treaty from which 'sovereignty' as a modern concept was born – the treaty of Westphalia. The poetry of Ahlam-al-Nasr and others like her treads between these seemingly conflicting positions by not only perpetuating the religious call of the caliphate but also celebrating the everyday life within the 'state' of Da'esh. The two positions are collapsed in her declaration 'In the caliphate, I saw women wearing the veil, everyone treating each other with virtue, and people closing up their shops at prayer times' written in an essay defending the leadership's decision to burn Moaz al-Kasasbeh. However, the danger of propagandists like Ahlam al Nasr is that they inspire followers who in turn encourage foreign fighters disaffected with western sovereignty. One such is a British Da'esh militant, Abuqaqa Britani, who used to go by the name 'greenbirdexpress' on the social networking site Ask.fm and has started posting his own verse on Twitter.  The widespread proliferation of jihadi poetry not only serves to redefine traditional notions of sovereignty but also endeavours to lure disaffected Muslims abroad to become foreign fighters. 

The Emerging Cultural Battleground

However, around the world people are fighting back. Sana al-Yemen, a British teenager recently found herself the centre of a media craze after she uploaded a video reciting her own anti-Da'esh poem on youtube. Within minutes Al-Jazeera, CNN and the BBC had contacted her for comment and the poem had gone viral. She now has over 4000 followers on Twitter and has been the focus of a feature length documentary. The poem itself specifically attacked preachers in Europe calling for young people take up arms in support of Da'esh. In particular she comments upon Sheikh Mohamed al-Areifi, a Salafist cleric from Saudi Arabia who has been accused of encouraging young British Muslims to head to Syria and Iraq. There are countless other individuals around the world undermining Da'esh's rhetoric, another British example being Humza Arshad. His joint project with Scotland Yard is an essential part of their counter extremism outreach work. Alongside police officers he participates in presentations at schools all over the UK. His tongue in cheek delivery was recorded by Griff White who observed:

The police officer had just finished an earnest presentation on counter-extremism before an audience of 200 restless teenagers at an East London secondary school when a young man of Pakistani origin in a black hoodie took the stage. "How many of you people are Muslim?" the man barked. He grinned as nearly every hand went up. "Guys, we can take over! Sharia law coming soon!" the man cried gleefully. "Allahu Akbar!"

The teens erupted in laughter even before the man had a chance to clarify: "I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I think I scared the white people."

There is a fine balance between ascribing media coverage to anti-Da'esh Muslim voices and ascribing expectation. A combination of the religious motivation of IS and the hesitancy of western media to confront to 'Islamic' aspect of 'Islamic State' has been counter-productive. Whilst striving to avoid offence, news agencies are overlooking how religion - if a warped interpretation - is fuelling the conflict. The danger with this approach is that it places an inordinate pressure upon the Muslim community to denounce Da'esh's use of religion. One example of this is the decision of the mosque that Mohammad Abdulazeez, the Tennessee shooter, prayed at to cancel its Eid al-Fitr celebrations and mourn the dead marines. The eyes of America and its news agencies were upon them and thus they felt unable to continue with their own un-radicalised religious practises, and obliged to provide the rejection of Da'esh's religion that others have avoided.  Headlines such as 'Government to take firmer stance on Muslims who fail to denounce jihadis' (the Independent, 18/07/2015) simply serve to increase this pressure and create an expectation for Muslim's to 'prove' their non-radicalisation by denouncing Da'esh. Marc Schneier wrote persuasively on this topic, commenting that this question arises out of the failure of the western media to effectively record the instant rejections of radicalism that surround many Islamist terrorist attacks. For instance, during the summer of 2014, the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza triggered an explosion of violent anti-Semitism across Europe; many acts were committed by Muslims. While the media highlighted the very real and deeply troubling upsurge of violence in countries like France, Germany and Belgium, they rarely reported on Muslim leaders who denounced the violence. This media neglect then occasionally boils over into sudden bouts fierce expectancy where various Muslim communities are forced to 'prove' their moderate beliefs even though they have frequently espoused them in the past. Ironically, the trepidation of news agencies to approach the clear religious motivation of Da'esh is placing an inordinate expectation and ultimately suspicion upon wider Muslim communities to do so. This is why the widespread coverage of everyday low key actors such as Sana al-Yemen is so important.

This coverage is also essential as initiatives such as Humza Arshad's showcase the power of humour to undermine Da'esh's rhetoric. In a recent interview on CNN Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef, former host of Al Bernameg, summed this up perfectly when he said 'I think satire is incredible because basically it takes down this kind of fear from the hearts of people and when you take away the fear through laughter, they aren’t scary anymore'. Indeed, just across the border from Da'esh is the new hit Iraqi comedy show Dawlat al-Khurafa or the Superstitious State — a play on khilafa, or caliphate. It features Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Da'esh's leader, as a buffoon who hatches from an egg after a truly bizarre ceremony involving Satan, the Joker and, as far as I can make out, a Western cowboy. The show draws attention to the little known ludicrous laws imposed by Da'esh such as the banning of electric razors and the displaying of tomatoes side by side. 

Da'esh is in a critical stage in its development. No longer fuelled by constant military success and under increasing threat from Kurdish forces, who recently captured military bases 30 miles from Raqqa, it is becoming increasingly reliant on its own interpretation of sovereignty. Nevertheless, it still poses an enormous threat to regional and international security so this cultural weakness needs to exploited to destroy the fantasy caliphate that both holds Da'esh together internally and allures foreign fighters. By examining jihadi poetry we can gain an essential glimpse into the cultural mindset of the fighters and use this to target anxieties afflicting the self proclaimed state as a whole. To do this the international community must draw media attention to individuals such as Sana, Humza and the unpublicised hundreds like them who recognise this weakness. News of the military battle against Da'esh is daily reported, with accounts of coalition bombing filling headlines, but its cultural and intellectual counterpart has not been sufficiently covered.  The intellectual battleground needs to be placed at the forefront by policymakers, not simply sidelined in favour of an expansion of coalition bombing. In codifying its reinterpretation and rejection of Western sovereignty, Da'esh is becoming more reliant on its own self proclaimed myth. By waging this 'intellectual war' and expanding media coverage of everyday rejections of radicalism we can both deconstruct Da'esh's self edifying mythos and reduce the number of foreign fighters flocking to support it.

Click here for an Iraqi News report on Dawlat al-Khurafa.

Russia and the Power of Social Media

JACOB WILLIAMS

Half a century is a long time in international politics. In 1959, when Khrushchev visited the American National Exhibition in Moscow, he was shown a model American kitchen and told by his counterpart, then Vice-President Richard Nixon, of the wonders of capitalism in easing the domestic burden of the Western housewife. His scathing reply was that this backwards attitude towards women “does not occur under Communism”. This was not an isolated incident, but part of a wider pattern of cultural conflict: viewing marriage as a bourgeois institution, the Soviet regime made divorce so easy that the Palace of Marital Union in Kiev was viewed as a laughing stock; meanwhile, a key plank of McCarthy’s Red Scare was the paranoid persecution of homosexuals as a threat to the American family.

Fast-forward to today and Russia and the West are again increasingly at loggerheads, but this time the cultural battleground is reversed. Russian lawmakers extol the virtues of conservative Christian social attitudes whilst the West, increasingly tending towards a more socially progressive outlook, lambasts the country’s repressive treatment of sexual minorities. When the US Supreme Court declared bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional and Facebook erupted into a sea of rainbow colours, the suggestion by legislator Vitaly Molonov that Russia ban the website for breaking its law against “gay propaganda” was met with outrage and disgust. 

The argument made by Molonov concerning Facebook, that the website ought to be banned for breaching Russian laws against the “promotion” of homosexuality in a manner visible to children, ties in to wider Russian critiques of a hegemonic western media promoting a socially liberal agenda at the expense of nations’ rights to determine moral questions for themselves. A glance at the responses to the Supreme Court ruling from most large, mainstream western media organisations tells us that this is not without substance. Western elites tend to support policies like same sex marriage out of proportion to the views of their consumers, who are much more divided in their views.

The case of Facebook is particularly interesting. When logging into Facebook, a Russian uses a means of communication whose structure, down to the smallest detail, is continually designed and re-designed by Americans. And the structure of a communications system can powerfully influence the content it produces. Facebook and Twitter are inherently about self-promotion, about asserting individual preferences and tastes in a sphere where community structures, if represented at all, are dissolvable at click of a button. Small wonder that just as community-minded commentators in the Anglosphere used to rail against the ills of television, so too social conservatives in Russia are suspicious of social media. 

Neither is the choice to use social media one made in isolation. The whole business model of the dominant platforms is that of achieving a critical mass of members, at which point a cost, in isolation, is imposed on those slow to take them up. In a globalising world, this increasingly looks to the Russian right like a cost imposed by liberal minded Californians on God-fearing Russian families against their will and consent. For people like Molonov, the decision to use a platform that promotes individualism and self-regard is one that ought to have been taken collectively, not through formally free global markets that allow liberal America to impose its values abroad. 

If this all sounds disturbingly authoritarian, on one level, of course, it is. But there is no point in getting carried away in our outrage. Not so long ago, here in the UK, similar arguments were widely accepted for the banning of pirate radio stations in the days of the BBC’s broadcasting monopoly in order to safeguard cultural standards. Of course, it is far easier, and thus a more significant restriction if one is prevented from doing so, to sign up on Facebook than to create a radio broadcasting station. And actually banning foreign broadcasting was a step few liberal democracies ever had the stomach to take. 

Whether the idea is as egregious a violation of human rights as our media suggest, however, is far from clear. Certainly it is illiberal and dangerous, and speaks to a wider culture of censorship in Russia. In any case this is not a defence of the idea, or of Russian cultural and media policy generally, just a plea that our governments might make better choices if we took the time to understand it, and to understand the fact that Russian conservatives are often more than just simple bigots. 

The Bear’s Embrace: Russia and Kyrgyzstan

Katherine Crofts-Gibbons

Kyrgyzstan doesn’t get a lot of space in the press, but for anyone interested in Russia’s place in the world, it deserves attention. Kyrgyzstan’s entry into the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) signals Russia’s politico-economic power in the region. Two pieces of proposed legislation point to a deeper, normative dimension of Russian influence. 

On 21st May, after many missed deadlines, Kyrgyzstan joined the EEU, reflecting a shift away from America and towards Russia. The EEU is widely seen as an attempt by Putin to craft an alternative to the EU and reassert Russian power in the former Soviet Union.  The length of negotiations, and alleged foot dragging by Kyrgyz lawmakers may indicate that Kyrgyzstan has been unwillingly pulled into Russia’s arms. There is a case to be made that, as former Prime Minister Djoomart Otorbaev told Eurasianet, "there is no alternative" for Kyrgyzstan. Russia is its biggest export market, and increasingly tight immigration controls have made life difficult for the 1.5 million Kyrgyz living in Russia. 

However, there is, arguably, a deeper dimension to Russia’s influence, which suggests that Kyrgyzstan is not such an unwilling partner. 

Two pieces of legislation directly modelled on Russian examples are currently progressing through the legislative system. A "foreign agents" law passed its first reading on 4th June, 83 to 23, and is expected to come into law after elections in October. Following the example of Russia’s 2012 bill, the law would require foreign funded NGOs which engage in "political activities" to register as foreign agents. It would make establishing an NGO with aims to "incite citizens to refuse to fulfil their civic duties or commit other unlawful acts" punishable by 3 years imprisonment.

Nurkamil Madaliev, a cosponsor of the bill, has justified it as protecting Kyrgyzstan from Islamic extremism funded by Gulf Arabs, and, echoing Russian rhetoric, Western-funded organisations’ attempts to educate Kyrgyz youths about gay rights. One of the laws leading supporters, Tursunbai Bakir uulu, argues that the law will protect Kyrgyzstan from foreign "sabotage".

The second piece of legislation is a harsher version of Russia’s 2013 "gay propaganda" law. On the 24th June, it passed its second reading, 90 to 2. Under the legislation, anyone who creates "a positive attitude toward non-traditional sexual relations" could face up to a years imprisonment. Activists fear this could make publicly coming out a criminal act. The anti-gay agenda is widely linked to anti-western sentiments, as demonstrated by a protest outside the American Embassy in 2014 led by the nationalist youth-group Kalys, which conflated western support for LGBT rights with support for democracy activists in Ukraine.

There are two readings of the situation. It is possible that Russia is putting pressure on Kyrgyzstan to follow its path. There are rumours that Moscow has pressured lawmakers to support the laws, but solid evidence is scarce.

The second perspective is perhaps more worrying. Kyrgyzstan’s politicians do not need Russian pressure to be homophobic or suspicious of the West. Homophobia has long been linked to debates over nationality, which have come to the fore since communal violence between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks in 2010. Homosexuality is framed as a Western perversion. From this perspective, LGBT rights necessarily involve the imposition of foreign norms, and so must be resisted to protect national identity. 

Fears of Western influence have been stoked by claims that America is using NGOs to foment a Ukraine-style uprising. In a country that has experienced two revolutions in the last ten years, avoiding a third is high on the agenda. Kremlin-backed interpretations of the Ukraine crisis play a part, but are not the whole story. The view that Western influence lay behind the Tulip Revolution is not exclusive to Moscow, and the Kyrgyz political establishment has become increasingly suspicious of the West since the 2010 violence which, it is claimed, Western governments unfairly blamed on ethnic Kyrgyz.

So, although modelled on Russian examples, the ‘foreign agents’ and ‘gay propaganda’ laws are, to an extent, the result of home-grown dynamics, which points to the second dimension of Russian influence. Russia exercises active political and economic pressure, but it also provides a precedent and an alternative international "camp", making it easier for Kyrgyzstan to follow an illiberal path of its own choosing. Through the EEU, Russia is presenting a politico-economic alternative to Western integration - but it is also offering an alternative normative framework and normalising an illiberal political trajectory.  This calls into question established international human rights norms and provides a powerful ally for states that would question them. 

China's New Crackdown on Human Rights Law

WILL YELDHAM, WRITING FOR THE ORGANISATION FOR WORLD PEACE

On the night of 9th July, Wang Yu, a Fengrui lawyer, frantically sent her friends a text message saying that the internet connection and electricity had been cut off at her home and that people were trying to break in. Her disappearance early next morning signalled the beginning of a nationwide crackdown in the latest example of China’s human rights violations. Ms. Wang’s clients include practitioners of the religious group Falun Gong, who have been systematically persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party since July 1999, when the CCP launched an initiative to eradicate the practice.

Ms. Wang, whose whereabouts remain unknown, gained notoriety for becoming the first female Chinese human rights lawyer and defending Uighur economist Ilham Tothi, who is now serving a life sentence on separatism charges, and high-profile rights activist Cao Shunli, who died in police custody. Since Ms. Wang’s arrest over 100 human rights lawyers and activists have been detained or questioned. According to the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, many of those detained had signed a public letter calling for Ms. Wang’s release. Ms. Wang worked for Beijing Fengrui Law Firm which has subsequently been labelled as a “criminal platform” by state-backed media. Four lawyers from the firm, as well as an assistant and a lawyer’s husband, have been "criminally detained" for "seriously violating the law", the article said without specifying any charges.

Feng Zhenghu, a veteran human rights activist based in Shanghai, was one of those questioned by the authorities. He told CNN “the government asked us not to poke our nose into this business, to ignore the missing lawyers”. Feng also hinted at the cause of the crackdown stating the authorities “wanted us to know that they don’t want us to post or repost anything on this matter on the Internet”, showing the Chinese authorities’ fear of public mobilisation and damage to public opinion. With social protests and strikes on the rise and uncertain economic waters ahead, this crackdown sets a worrying precedent.

Furthermore, China unveiled a new “National Security Law” earlier this year which was widely viewed as giving authorities sweeping new powers to suppress human rights by defining ‘national security’ in broad and vague terms. The U.S. State Department released a statement on Monday expressing deep concern over the detentions and pointing out that the new law’s being used as “a legal façade to commit human rights abuses”. It’s nothing new for the U.S and China to trade human rights allegations, such as the lengthy report announced last month by the official Xinhua news agency drawing attention to “grim problems of racial discrimination” and the use of “cruel tortures indiscriminately” within the United States. Nevertheless, in this instance criticism has been widespread with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both condemning China’s actions.

According to the Ministry of Public Security, the official charge against the lawyers is “disrupting public order and seeking profits by illegally hiring protesters and swaying court decisions in the name of defending justice and public interests”. There are two clear problems with this. Firstly, and most obviously, the widespread outrage and protest is not hired but very real and simply goes to show that the increasingly desperate security measures being enacted are in fact having the inverse effect and stoking public anger. Secondly, it seems likely that these arrests were made to deter foreign “meddling” in China’s internal affairs. Guancha.cn, a state-backed Shanghai-based news site, cited links between the firm and U.S. Representative Chris Smith, the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees global human rights. Smith issued a statement confirming that he had indeed met with some of the lawyers. Thus, the aim of China’s crackdown is twofold, to suppress protest within the country and to deter foreign governments and NGOs from attempting to gather information on human rights transgressions. Just as the internal suppression is in fact fuelling the fire, the international community must not let China’s actions deter them from probing deeper into the ramifications of this “New Law”.

Find more from the OWP on their website and on Facebook.

The 29th Session of the Human Rights Council: Round-Up

Amelia Cooper

The 29th Session of the Human Rights Council closed last week, following three weeks of discussions that have culminated in the adoption of twenty-five resolutions with varying degrees of probity. In addition, six new Special Procedures mandate holders were appointed to address issues including, inter alia, the right to privacy, violence against women (including its causes and consequences), and the human rights of people with albinism. 

It is near impossible to provide a brief and cohesive summary of the Council’s session, due to the breadth of its agenda; however, there is an excellent report by the Universal Rights Group and a collection of detailed updates by FIDH for those seeking a more detailed analysis. Some outcomes are particularly notable in opening new fields for greater scrutiny (though that is not to say that they are more important than other resolutions adopted), such as: 

  • The passage of a resolution focused on the protection of migrants, including those in transit;
  • The passage of a resolution focused on the persecution of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar;
  • The passage of a landmark resolution condemning and seeking to combat child, early and forced marriage, the first of its kind; 
  • The adoption of a resolution focused on ensuring accountability for the violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, following the release of a report by the independent Commission of Inquiry into the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. The USA has received condemnation from states and CSOs alike for being the only member state to vote against this resolution; 
  • The renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea, which will facilitate further fact-finding into and human rights monitoring of a deeply troubled state; and 
  • The creation of a Commission of Inquiry into human rights violations committed in South Sudan. 

What merits specific and focused discussion, however, is the presence of what FIDH President Karim Lahidji referred to as a ‘full-fledged offensive’ by a coalition of conservative states seeking to ‘deny the universality of human rights’. Headed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Russia, this group of States has become increasingly active in attempting to curtail and recharacterise human rights with subjective concepts such as ‘defamation’ and ‘traditional values’. 

This session, debates over three resolutions were the epicentres of attacks on universality, pertaining to violence against women, freedom of expression and the protection of the family. Amendments proposed by a number of states challenged the very meaning of equal human rights for all and threatened the protection afforded to individuals regardless of their sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. 

With regard to the resolution on violence against women, Egypt, Russia and a number of Gulf states submitted amendments to withdraw condemnation of marital rape and intimate partner violence. Though these amendments were fortunately voted down, the rights of the individual within a family or domestic context were threatened by the renewal of the resolution on the protection of the family. 

Despite its seemingly innocuous – and almost quaint – sounding title, the resolution shrouds a pernicious agenda that refuses, first, to recognise that the family may exist in diverse forms, including having same sex parents or child-headed families (indeed, proposed amendments to include such a fact were blocked with the invocation of the Procedural No Action motion, a device used to block substantive debate). Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that human rights violations can occur within a family context (as illustrated in the resolution on violence against women), and represents a shift away from individual rights. It is a resolution that stands in stark contrast to the ideals that the Human Rights Council was formed upon: rather than promoting equality and non-discrimination, it enshrines their antithesis. 

The concept of ‘defamation’ reared its ugly head once again during negotiations on the proposed resolution to protect artistic expression, which has since been abandoned. As previously discussed here, moving away from the defamation agenda with the passage of Resolution 16/18 was widely celebrated; I sincerely hope that it does not gain traction in coming sessions. 

As ever, therefore, a mixed bag of results from the Council: some successes which deserve to be celebrated, but also a number of failures that require public and widespread condemnation. It is clear that we cannot be complacent: if anything, public vigilance is required more than ever to ensure that the founding principles of the Council continue to provide the basis of its work, and that the attempts to undermine universal standards are soundly rebuffed. The Council will meet again in September – it is incumbent upon the international community to reaffirm the principle of human rights for all, and on us to hold the Council and our governments to account for doing so.