In response to the National Court of Spain convicting the former Salvadoran colonel and former defence minister Inocente Montano for the murder of five Jesuit priests in 1989, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International, said: “This historic ruling is an important step in the search for justice that, for decades, has been denied to the victims of the armed conflict in El Salvador. But it also reminds us of the enormous debt that Salvadoran authorities owe in guaranteeing truth, justice and reparation. It's unacceptable that in El Salvador, almost 30 years after the signing of the Peace Accords, those responsible for crimes committed during the armed conflict are still allowed to escape justice and enjoy impunity.” “The Salvadoran authorities have before them several cases of human rights violations committed during the armed conflict. The only case that has advanced substantially is the El Mozote massacre. In the coming days, the judge in the case will inspect installations of the Armed Forces in search of information about this military operation. President Bukele’s government has an opportunity to fulfill justice, hand over the files or reconstruct them. If it refuses to do so, it will join the list of governments that have turned their back on the victims.” "This historic ruling is an important step in the search for justice that, for decades, has been denied to the victims of the armed conflict in El Salvador" Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International “We urge all state authorities, including the president, to take decisive and forceful action to guarantee, once and for all, the rights of the victims of the armed conflict.” Additional information: According to the United Nations Truth Commission, more than 75,000 people were tortured, extrajudicially executed or forcibly disappeared during the internal armed conflict in El Salvador between 1980 and 1992. The Salvadoran Army was responsible for numerous crimes under international law and serious human rights violations within communities accused of supporting guerrilla groups. Armed opposition groups also committed crimes under international law and human rights abuses. In the early morning of 16 November 1989, six Jesuit priests, their cook and her daughter were murdered by the military at the victims’ residence inside the José Simeón Cañas Central American University in San Salvador. The soldiers, members of the Atlacatl Battalion, entered the campus and the priests’ residence. They ordered the priests out of their dormitories and then they shot them. They also shot Julia Elba Ramos and Celina, her 15-year-old daughter. "We urge all state authorities, including the president, to take decisive and forceful action to guarantee, once and for all, the rights of the victims of the armed conflict" Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International Nine members of the battalion were tried between 26 and 28 September 1991. Seven were acquitted. However, on 24 March 1993, the few convicted were released, having benefited from the amnesty law that had been passed two days earlier. Although they had been identified in the Truth Commission Report, those suspected of planning and ordering the killings were not prosecuted. © 2020 Amnesty International

Genocide Watch has published its third Timestream covering the case of Bosco Ntaganda's war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The timeline highlights Ntaganda's background, mainly focusing on the human rights violations he committed up until his voluntary surrender to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2013. View the full Timestream on our page here.

Government critic who left Rwanda in 1996 arrested abroad in unnamed location on international warrant, police say. Paul Rusesabagina - known for saving more than 1,000 people in the hotel he managed during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, a story later told into the Hollywood film Hotel Rwanda - has been arrested on terror charges. The Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB) said in a statement on Monday the 66-year-old government critic had been arrested abroad in an unnamed location on an international warrant and taken to the country to face charges "of serious crime including terrorism, arson, kidnap and murder". The announcement came as officers brought Rusesabagina - in handcuffs and a face mask - to the RIB's headquarters in the capital, Kigali, where he was shown to the press. Rusesabagina did not speak to the media. "Rusesabagina is suspected to be the founder, leader, sponsor and member of violent, armed, extremist terror outfits including the Rwanda Movement for Democratic Change [MRCD] operating out of various places in the region and abroad," police said. The 2004 Oscar-nominated film Hotel Rwanda showed Rusesabagina, a Hutu married to a Tutsi, as using his influence as a manager of the Hotel des Mille Collines, to allow more than 1,200 Tutsis to shelter in the hotel's rooms. In the film, Rusesabagina was played by US actor Don Cheadle. About 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered in 100 days in Rwanda from April 6. A well-known critic of President Paul Kagame, Rusesabagina had been living outside Rwanda since 1996, including in Belgium and the United States. He has won several international honours, including the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, which President George W Bush awarded him in 2005. Back home, however, Rusesabagina remains a "hugely controversial figure" where his status as a rescue hero in 1994 has been contested by a range of actors, according to senior lecturer Nicola Palmer at King's College London. Rusesabagina has sparked outrage with warnings of another genocide, this time by Tutsis against Hutus, drawing criticism from some genocide survivors and Kagame who accused him of exploiting the genocide for commercial gain. Rusesabagina has previously denied the government's charges that he financially supports Rwandan rebels and said he was the victim of a smear campaign. "What is key is that this arrest comes at a time when there have been a large number of international arrest warrants that have been enacted in a range of countries against the Rwandan diaspora", Palmer said, noting that this is the third high profile arrest in the last three months. "I think what we are seeing is a growing international support for the Rwanda's government in executing international arrest warrants," she added. During his years abroad, Rusesabagina has also called the government of Kagame - who has been in power since 1994 when his forces overthrew the genocidal regime - a "dictatorship" and urged Western countries to press it to stop violating human rights - allegations the government denies. Once championed in Western capitals as a reformer, Kagame has been criticised for overseeing constitutional changes to prolong his rule and cracking down on opposition voices. Published by Al Jazeera August 31, 2020. © 2020 Al Jazeera Media Network

The UN’s expert on human rights in the Central African Republic (CAR) issued a series of recommendations on Wednesday to ensure that citizens – after years of civil unrest – can freely decide the future of their country during presidential elections on 27 December. “For the elections to be peaceful, they must be preceded by a ceasefire and cooperation among all sides,” said Yao Agbetse, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Central African Republic. “Time is running short and there is much to be done in the four months before polling day.” With a potential run-off vote and National Assembly polling slated for early 2021, he called on armed groups to immediately lay down their arms, as agreed under the 2019 Peace Agreement, to fully cooperate in the conduct of elections - and to respect the results. Space for dialogue Noting that the Government controls less than 50 per cent of the country,Mr. Agbetse insisted on reactivating the existing inclusive dialogue space, where the Government, the opposition and civil society groups can agree on essential issues. “This kind of discussion is a prerequisite for restoring the confidence of the various actors in a peaceful way towards free and transparent elections that respect human rights and fundamental freedoms,” he assured. He warned that any recourse to violence entails the responsibility of the perpetrators, principals and accomplices - including before the Special Criminal Court or the International Criminal Court. “I call on the guarantors and facilitators of the Peace Agreement and the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council to take diligent action against the armed groups in order to guarantee the security of persons and property throughout the national territory,” he said. For its part, Government must do its utmost to ensure inclusive, free, credible and transparent elections, he said, stressing that fair access to public media is an indispensable component of the democratic exercise. A voice for refugees, displaced persons Offering context, Mr. Agbetse recalled that more than 1.1 million people of the country’s five million were forced to flee during the civil war. Authorities therefore must ensure that refugees and displaced people will be able to vote. International support is also needed. "I call on the international community to continue and strengthen its support for the organization of this and future presidential and legislative elections in the country,” he said. The Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Published by UN News August 27, 2020. © 2020 United Nations

Comrade Duch, a former senior figure of the Khmer Rouge convicted of crimes against humanity in Cambodia, has died. He was serving a life term after being sentenced by a UN-backed court. Kaing Guek Eav, known as Comrade Duch, ran the notorious Tuol Sleng prison where thousands of people were tortured and murdered in the late 1970s. As many as two million people are believed to have died under the Khmer Rouge, a Maoist regime that controlled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. In 2010, Duch became the first senior Khmer Rouge leader to be convicted by the UN-backed tribunal after a journalist found him in hiding a decade earlier. He was sentenced in 2012. He died on Wednesday, aged 77, a spokesman for the tribunal in the capital Phnom Penh said, without giving details of the cause. He had been ill for many years. "Duch died this morning at 00:52am, on 2 September at Khmer Soviet Friendship Hospital. Details of what he died of, I can't tell," the spokesman said. ​Duch's testimony at the tribunal was a landmark moment for Cambodians who had suffered under the Khmer Rouge's brutal reign, and future generations. While prison chief at Tuol Sleng, Duch maintained a huge archive of photos and documents, including thousands of prisoner "confessions", that revealed many aspects of the Khmer Rouge's inner workings. They also helped prosecutors trace the final months of thousands of inmates' lives. In Phnom Penh, there were mixed feelings about his death. "If he stayed alive then we may still hear more of the history from him for the younger generation and people," one man told Reuters news agency. Another resident said that she would never forget his crimes. "He deserves to serve more prison terms. But now he has died, I can forgive him and his case is finished." What happened at Tuol Sleng prison? Comrade Duch ran Phnom Penh's S-21 prison, also known as Tuol Sleng, the most notorious Khmer Rouge torture site. It is thought that at least 15,000 men, women and children deemed enemies of the regime passed through the gates of the former school-turned-prison. Most of them were tortured, forced to confess to fictitious crimes against the Khmer Rouge and then put to death at the so-called "killing fields" just outside the capital. Prisoners were initially officials from the old government, people accused of being middle class and later mainly Khmer Rouge members suspected of disloyalty. The guards, who were often teenagers, forced the prisoners to write detailed confessions to whatever they were accused of and implicate friends and family who were then imprisoned in turn. Those who survived the torture where eventually taken to the "killing fields" at Choeung Ek where they were killed, sometimes after digging their own mass graves. Fewer than a dozen prisoners survived Tuol Sleng. "Nothing in the former schoolhouse took place without Duch's approval. His control was total," wrote photojournalist Nic Dunlop, who found him in 1999 hiding near the Thai border. During his trial, Duch admitted he had been in charge of Tuol Sleng and apologised for his part in the horrors committed there. He later claimed he had only been following orders, but his appeal on those grounds was rejected by the tribunal. Who were the Khmer Rouge? The brutal Khmer Rouge, in power from 1975-1979, claimed the lives of around two million people. The regime led by Pol Pot tried to take Cambodia back to the Middle Ages, or "Year Zero", forcing millions of people from the cities to work on communal farms in the countryside. They at first targeted "intellectuals" - often identified as those who wore glasses or spoke a foreign language - and those connected to the old, US-backed regime that they overthrew. But their paranoid leaders later began to see "enemies" everywhere. Ethnic Vietnamese and Cham Muslims in Cambodia were also targeted. Many of the Khmer Rouge's victims died from starvation, disease and overwork. The regime was ousted in 1979 by Vietnamese troops, but the Khmer Rouge leaders escaped and continued to resist the new, Vietnamese-backed government from areas along the Thai-Cambodia border. The UN helped establish a tribunal to try the surviving leaders, which began work in 2009. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid spent, only three former Khmer Rouge have ever been sentenced - Comrade Duch, the regime's head of state Khieu Samphan and Pol Pot's second-in-command, Nuon Chea, who died last year after being convicted of genocide. Pol Pot himself died in 1998. The BBC's Guy de Launey, who attended Duch's trial, said he sat impassively through proceedings while judges described the techniques used at Tuol Sleng. Who was Comrade Duch? Duch was born in the early 1940s. He was a teacher but joined the communist party and his leftist activism led to brushes with the authorities. When the Vietnam war threatened to spill into neighbouring Cambodia, Duch joined the Khmer Rouge communist rebels under leader Pol Pot. After the rebels took control in 1975, he became the director of Tuol Sleng. In 1979, he fled along with other senior Khmer Rouge members into countryside near the Thai border. Living under a false name, he was identified by Nic Dunlop in 1999. In subsequent interviews, he admitted to the atrocities at Tuol Sleng but said the orders came from the Khmer Rouge's central committee. "Whoever was arrested must die. It was the rule of our party," he said. "We had the responsibility to interrogate and give the confession to the central committee of the party." Ten years later, facing the UN-backed tribunal, he described himself as "deeply remorseful" and apologised to relatives of his victims. In the closing days of his trial, he asked to be freed, saying he had not been a senior member of the Khmer Rouge hierarchy. Relatives of his victims said this made a mockery of his claims of remorse. Access full article here. BBC News © 2020

The two nations will pay special attention to prosecuting gender-based violence against Rohingya, including rape. More than 730,000 Rohingya fled Myanmar and crossed into Bangladesh after a brutal military crackdown in 2017 [File: Mohammad Ponir Hossain/ Reuters] Canada and the Netherlands will formally join The Gambia's legal bid to hold Myanmar accountable over allegations of genocide against its mostly-Muslim Rohingya minority in a move described by observers as historic. In a joint statement on Wednesday, Canadian Foreign Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne and his Dutch counterpart Stef Blok said the two nations were intervening in the case before the International Court of Justice in order "to prevent the crime of genocide and hold those responsible to account". Calling the lawsuit "of concern to all of humanity," Champagne and Blok said Canada and the Netherlands would "assist with the complex legal issues that are expected to arise and will pay special attention to crimes related to sexual and gender-based violence, including rape". More than 730,000 Rohingya fled their homes in Myanmar's Rakhine state in August 2017, crossing the border into neighbouring Bangladesh where they now live in crowded refugee camps after the military launched a brutal crackdown in the western state. Myanmar says the military action was a response to attacks by Rohingya armed groups in Rakhine. United Nations investigators concluded that the campaign had been executed with "genocidal intent". Champagne and Blok said in filing the case at the UN court, The Gambia "took a laudable step towards ending impunity for those committing atrocities in Myanmar". 'Historic' The New York-based Global Center for Justice welcomed the move by Canada and the Netherlands, calling it "nothing short of historic". Akila Radhakrishnan, the group's president, said: "Just as important as their intention to intervene is their promise to focus on gendered crimes of genocide like sexual and gender-based violence, which was central to the atrocities against the Rohingya." She added: "Too often, gendered experiences do not translate to justice and accountability efforts and leave the primary targets of those crimes - women and girls - behind. This is an important step forward to address that gap and Canada and the Netherlands should be applauded for this move." Rohingya groups also welcomed the move, and urged others to follow their lead. "Slowly, but surely, the net is closing in on Myanmar's leaders - they will not get away with this genocide," Tun Khin, president of the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK said in a statement, describing Canada and the Netherlands as being on the right side of history. "It is imperative that other states, including the United Kingdom, now stand on the right of justice for the Rohingya and other ethnic and religious minorities in Myanmar," the statement added. "Justice is a core demand of all Rohingya people and particularly important for those inside the camps of Cox's Bazar who have been forced to flee their homeland and live as refugees in a foreign state." Canada and the Netherlands also urged other states to support The Gambia's legal fight, which was launched in November last year on behalf of the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. In the lawsuit, the small West African country said that as a signatory to the 1948 Genocide Convention it had the obligation to prevent and punish genocide, no matter where it took place. Relying heavily on UN reports documenting killings, mass rapes and widespread arson in Rohingya villages, The Gambia alleged Myanmar was committing "an ongoing genocide" against its Rohingya minority and called for emergency measures as a preliminary step to protect the long-persecuted minority. Myanmar's leader Aung San Suu Kyi attended the initial hearings at The Hague in December last year, calling on the 17-judge panel to dismiss the case. Rejecting the genocide claims, she warned the UN judges that allowing The Gambia's case to go ahead risked reigniting the crisis and could "undermine reconciliation". The panel in January ordered Myanmar to take emergency measures to protect its Rohingya population, pending the fuller case. Myanmar will now have to regularly report on its efforts to protect Rohingya from acts of genocide every six months until a final ruling is made, a process that could take years. Although ICJ rulings are final and binding, countries have occasionally flouted them, and the court has no formal mechanism to enforce its decisions. © 2020 Al Jazeera Media Network

Agreement provides for the dismantling of rebel forces and integration of their fighters into the national army. Sudan's government and the main rebel alliance agreed on a peace deal on Monday to end 17 years of conflict. The Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), a coalition of rebel groups from the western region of Darfur and the southern states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, signed the peace agreement at a ceremony in Juba, capital of neighbouring South Sudan, which has hosted and helped mediate the long-running talks since late 2019. The final agreement covers key issues around security, land ownership, transitional justice, power sharing, and the return of people who fled their homes because of war. It also provides for the dismantling of rebel forces and the integration of their fighters into the national army. The deal is a significant step in the transitional leadership's goal of resolving multiple, deeply rooted civil conflicts. Later on Monday, the United States, the United Kingdom and Norway welcomed the peace agreement as a first step in rebuilding stability in the country. "It is an important step in restoring security, dignity, and development to the population of Sudan's conflict-affected and marginalised areas. We believe the formal agreement must be followed up with local peace and reconciliation efforts in the conflict-affected areas," the countries said in a joint statement. About 300,000 people have been killed in Darfur since rebels took up arms there in 2003, according to the United Nations. Conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile erupted in 2011, following unresolved issues from bitter fighting there in Sudan's 1983-2005 civil war. Two rebel factions refused to take part in the deal. Marginalisation Leaders of the SRF raised their fists in celebration after signing the agreement. Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and several ministers flew to Juba on Sunday, the official news agency SUNA reported, where he met South Sudan President Salva Kiir. Hamdok said finding a deal had taken longer than first hoped after an initial agreement in September 2019. Both military chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Hamdok were in attendance on Monday, while Kiir oversaw the ceremony. The rebel forces took up arms against what they said was the economic and political marginalisation by the government in Khartoum. They are largely drawn from non-Arab minority groups that long railed against Arab domination of successive governments in Khartoum, including that of toppled President Omar al-Bashir. The rebel groups that signed the agreement include the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Minni Minawi's Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), both of the western region of Darfur. Rebel members of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) had provisionally initialled the agreement with the government late on Saturday. However, an SLM faction led by Abdelwahid Nour and a wing of the SPLM-N headed by Abdelaziz al-Hilu refused to take part. Al Jazeera's Hiba Morgan, reporting from Khartoum, said the peace talks were a long arduous process. "It looks like the rebel groups got most of what they wanted. The negotiations have been very complicated, they were halted several times. But it looks like for now they have a deal." See full news release here. Al Jazeera © 2020

Final list of candidates excludes Rohingya (YANGON, August 31, 2020)—The Government of Myanmar should take immediate steps to ensure that ethnic-Rohingya can run for seats in Parliament in the November 8 elections, said Fortify Rights today. The Union Election Commission announced the final list of candidates over the weekend, excluding the majority of Rohingya applicants. “This election is increasingly on track to being unfree, but there is still time to change course,” said Ismail Wolff, Fortify Rights Regional Director. “For an inclusive, free, and fair election, the government must ensure everyone’s right to meaningfully participate, regardless of their race, religion, or ethnicity. That hasn’t happened yet.” Between August 11 and 24, the commission twice rejected the candidacies of at least six Rohingya, refusing their registrations and appeals. The six rejected Rohingya candidates include one woman—Khin Khin Lwin, 43—and Kyaw Min, 76, Aung Hla, 58, Saw Myint, 66, Abdul Rasheed, 58, and Abu Tahay, 56. The continued denial of Rohingya candidates’ right to stand for election is part of the Myanmar Government’s wider persecution of the ethnic minority and refusal of their full citizenship rights, said Fortify Rights. The previous government, under former President Thein Sein, disenfranchised Rohingya from the 2015 polls but they were able to run and vote in earlier elections. Several governments and international organizations are believed to be providing financial and technical assistance for Myanmar’s forthcoming elections, risking complicity by failing to mount concerted efforts to prevent the political disenfranchisement of Rohingya. “Knowing a violation is happening, having the ability to influence it, and doing nothing is the very definition of complicity,” said Ismail Wolff. “This isn’t a question of sovereignty or rule of law: it’s a question of ending genocide and recognizing dignity and rights for all.” See full news release here. © 2020 Fortify Rights International

Promotional poster for a new documentary about Iraq produced for the BBC and PBS. (BBC/PBS/Frontline) A new five-hour documentary series on the social impact of the Iraq War made for the BBC and PBS has been roundly criticized for entirely ignoring the plight of Iraq’s persecuted Christians and other minorities. Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Bashar Warda said the documentary’s failure to discuss the plight of Iraq’s persecuted minorities ‘is tantamount to showing we do not matter and should have no voice.’ In an Aug. 20 open letter to the BBC, Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Bashar Warda of Erbil in northern Iraq said the airbrushing of any mention of the country’s minorities in the program, called Once Upon a Time in Iraq, raised “grave concerns” about the program’s editorial process. Made by British filmmaker James Bluemel and aired on the BBC over the summer, the series aims to offer a “personal archive from civilians and soldiers from both sides of the conflict.” Those interviewed share their personal accounts and recollections of life under Saddam Hussein, the U.S.-led invasion, and the years of chaos and hardship that followed, including sectarian violence and the atrocities carried out by the Islamic State group, which occupied parts of northern and central Iraq from 2013 to 2017. The program was produced by KEO films, an independent company that describes itself as having a “strong ethical brand reputation and innovative approach” that have led its programs to being “ratings powerhouses and award winners.” In his Aug. 20 letter, Archbishop Warda said the omissions, especially as the U.S. government had declared the persecuted minorities to be victims of genocide by Islamic State, was “both wounding and damaging.” “It is wounding because I feel it is tantamount to showing we do not matter and should have no voice,” Archbishop Warda wrote. “Those like ISIS, who have persecuted us, have consistently sought to deny us a voice.” He said it was damaging because of the BBC’s “global reputation and credibility,” which makes the program a “profound setback to achieving understanding of the atrocities committed against us and our plight on the global stage.” The program was also a “dereliction” of the BBC’s commitment to impartiality, the archbishop added. The commitment, which dates back to its founding, aims to ensure a “range of views is appropriately reflected” so that “no significant strand of thought is under-represented or omitted.” Archbishop Warda called on the BBC to rectify the omissions “so far as it is possible,” and include corrections. “I appeal to you to consider my letter seriously and the pain this has caused to these minority communities in Iraq who followed it in the U.K., U.S., and other countries,” he wrote in closing. ‘False Representation’ John Neill, a volunteer aid worker for the Chaldean Archdiocese of Erbil, noted that not only was there “no mention of the Yazidis in the whole series” but that it also ignored the presence of Iranian militias, which are “causing a huge issue of security, resulting in the minorities fleeing for the diaspora.” The most used words in Iraq are “hope” and “voice,” Neill told the Register, but the series “denied the minorities both.” The Yazidis, a small ethno-religious minority who were targeted for genocide by ISIS because of their syncretistic religious beliefs, are a “deeply damaged and traumatized people,” and all Iraq’s ancient minorities are in “desperate need” of “education, livelihood programs, capacity building, rights and security,” he said. Murad Ismael, a Yazidi activist and former director of the Yazda Organization, said the BBC program’s omission of the “Yazidis, Christians, Kakais and others is a false representation of Iraq,” adding it was “very regrettable” that a “major global media outlet” would “completely ignore one of the most important parts of Iraq’s reality.” The denial of crimes committed against the Yazidis and other minorities takes many different forms, Ismael told the Register, “including the subjective, cherry-picked media coverage, which is utterly unacceptable.” “The story of minorities in Iraq is the story of some two million Iraqis who found themselves on the run for their lives,” he added. “Thousands were killed, other thousands were enslaved, and hundreds of thousands lost their homes, churches, temples, and everything they ever owned — if all that is not worth being a part of Iraq’s story, I don’t think there is a story to be told at all.” BBC Response In response to the criticism, a BBC representative said Once Upon a Time in Iraq is a “highly-acclaimed series from award-winning producers” which “does not claim to offer a definitive history of the Iraq War or its people; rather it seeks to tell the stories of individuals from many sides of those conflicts — civilians, soldiers and journalists — allowing the audience to understand the impact of war on a personal level, and what it was like to live through key moments.” But Thomas Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute, an NGO working to achieve worldwide acceptance of religious freedom, criticized the response as “self-congratulatory, arrogant and revealing.” He told the Register that the omissions are “inexplicable” in themselves, and help “explain why public awareness of massive global religious persecution and its effects on human dignity and international security is so low.” The Register contacted Bluemel for comment. He did not respond, but in a July 13 article in the U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper, he wrote that he did not want to make “a regular documentary where I interviewed politicians, decision makers and the key players” and instead wished to “tell the story through the eyes of those whose lives were impacted and altered by those political decisions.” The BBC has been increasingly criticized in recent decades for its lack of impartiality on a range of issues, and especially when it comes to religious and political coverage. But such failures are not just limited to the BBC but particularly common in the mainstream media, according to Nina Shea, an expert in religious freedom at the Hudson Institute. She said the BBC and other mainstream media “typically suffer from secular myopia, meaning they are blind to religious influences in world events” and that this is “particularly true” when it comes to “Christianity and Judaism for those covering the ‘Muslim’ Middle East.” Shea pointed out that Muslims are taught in Iraq and elsewhere that history began with Islam’s arrival in the seventh century, but “there is simply silence” when it comes to the “pre-existence of Christian, Yazidi, Mandean and Jewish communities and their significant contributions to Iraqi civilization” up to modern times. This is why, she added, Islamists often refer to Christians as “Crusaders” and believes the BBC may think this, too, or that the Christian faith was brought by European colonial powers and so does not belong in Iraq. Liberal Bias? Shea also does not rule out “bias on the part of media liberals who refuse to see Christians and other Middle Eastern religious minorities as victims of persecution and, as the U.S. officially designated, under the Islamic State, genocide.” Such bias, she said, misses a “major piece of the Iraq War history,” namely how such ancient communities have been “all but eradicated” since 2003 and are still struggling to rebuild. “The story of the Iraq War’s consequences, including the rise of ISIS that led to the devastation of these ancient minorities, should be told,” Shea said. Gregory Stanton, founding president of Genocide Watch, also noted that religious minorities in Iraq “have long been ignored” and said one reason is because the British government will not declare what happened in Iraq a genocide until a court declares it. He stressed “there is nothing” in the UN Genocide Convention that says only a court can use the word. “The BBC follows suit,” Stanton said. “It is an absurd position.” The result of such “denialism,” he said, is that “protection for targeted groups always comes too late.” What is needed, Stanton added, is for a British government commission to use the word “genocide” when it is “not too late to intervene to prevent it.” The sum of such airbrushing “makes the task of seeking international support work and humanitarian aid that much harder,” said Neill, who was also once a BBC employee. He pointed out that the Mandeans, an ethnoreligious group in Iraq dating back to the second century BC, are “nearly gone, the Yazidis have no financial support, and what happens when Christianity disappears from Iraq after 2,000 years?” Neill said the omissions in programs like Once Upon a Time in Iraq make his work of raising funds and awareness to help the minorities survive “that much harder,” at a time when the UK and Europe already “do nothing of concrete value” for Iraq’s minorities who look set to “disappear under the sight of their consulates in Erbil.” Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent. Copyright 2020 National Catholic Register

Right now, women and children are suffering at the hands of Boko Haram terrorists and Fulani militants. Thanks to supporters like you, our new campaign is able to hear from these vulnerable people. We are excited to share stories and testimonies from these strong women and hopeful children - follow us Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and [https:/www.instagram/standwithnigeria/?blm_aid=9585665]Instagram. We couldn't do it without you! ICON Press Conference for "Nigeria's Silent Slaughter" At the end of July, ICON hosted a virtual press conference to launch her data report, titled "Nigeria's Silent Slaughter: Genocide in Nigeria" You have helped make a difference in your advocacy work for Nigeria! See how your support has impacted our efforts for Nigerians: Advocated for Religious Freedom and the rights of the persecuted and vulnerable in Nigeria. Launched our data report, "Nigeria's Silent Slaughter: Genocide in Nigeria" Provided palliative care for Nigerians in various IDP locations. ICON Incident Tracker Since January 2020, there have been over 2,600 deaths as a result of Boko Haram terrorism and Fulani militant attacks. June had over 650 deaths, July over 330 deaths and already in August over 100 deaths Follow at: SilentSlaughterNigeria.com

The move could dramatically escalate tensions with Beijing, which denies copious reporting on the maltreatment of its Muslim minority. The United States is weighing formally labeling China’s brutal repression of ethnic Muslim minority Uighurs a “genocide,” two Trump administration officials said. Activists and lawmakers have been pushing for the genocide designation in recent months, but mere consideration of the possibility by the U.S. government could further damage badly frayed ties between Beijing and Washington. It also comes in the heat of the 2020 presidential campaign, in which the two sides have jousted over which candidate would be tougher on China. A spokesperson for Joe Biden noted that the former vice president supports the label — a factor that could influence President Donald Trump’s calculations. The internal administration discussions are still at the early stages, involving working level officials at the State Department, the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, according to the administration officials who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity. If there’s not enough consensus to use the term genocide, the administration could instead accuse the Chinese leadership of other atrocities, such as “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.” White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien has accused China’s communist leaders of running “concentration camps” for Uighurs in Xinjiang, a northwestern province home to millions of Uighurs. A member of a United Nations human rights panel said in 2018 that China had “turned the Uighur autonomous region into something that resembles a massive internment camp,” where people are held without charge and little recourse to get legal representation to be released. More than a million Uighurs are believed to be held in such facilities. Uighur rights groups have accused the Chinese government of torturing many Uighurs, forcing Uighur women to get abortions and be sterilized, feeding some detainees poorly and trying to wipe away their distinct ethnic culture, including forcing many to denounce Islam and chant Communist Party slogans. Beijing also uses extensive surveillance technology to track Uighurs. Genocide declarations are rare, legally tricky and highly politically sensitive. U.S. officials have at times tried to avoid such declarations in the past, not least because, in theory, international law would compel some sort of American intervention — though not necessarily the military kind. China is a rising power with a veto on the United Nations Security Council, so U.S. advocates of the genocide label may face higher than usual political hurdles. But Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with China on trade and the coronavirus pandemic. He may be willing to go with the genocide label, despite allegations by former national security adviser John Bolton — which Trump denies — that the president told Chinese President Xi Jinping he approves of the treatment of the Uighurs. State Department spokespeople would neither confirm nor deny that a genocide label is under discussion. “We are working hard to encourage the People’s Republic of China to cease its human rights abuses in Xinjiang and are constantly evaluating various measures,” a spokesperson said. “We do not comment on potential actions.” NSC spokesman John Ullyot also didn’t address the genocide discussion but did say in a statement: “The Chinese Communist Party’s atrocities also include the largest incarceration of an ethnic minority since World War II. Where the previous administration and many other world leaders delivered speeches and empty rhetoric, President Trump has taken bold action.” A DHS spokesman declined to comment. The term “ethnic cleansing” carries little weight in international law, but U.S. officials have used it at times instead of genocide. For instance, the Trump administration called Myanmar’s mass killing and large-scale expulsion of Rohingya Muslims — which began three years ago this week — an “ethnic cleansing,” imposing sanctions on some of the alleged perpetrators. The State Department, through its Office of Global Criminal Justice, has traditionally taken the lead on investigating and designating genocides. Under the Obama administration, it declared that the Islamic State terrorist group committed genocide against Christians, Yazidis and other groups in Iraq and Syria. But despite intense pressure from scholars and activists, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been unwilling to declare the Rohingyas’ case a genocide. State Department officials said that, among other things, Pompeo worries that leveling a genocide accusation against Myanmar could lead its government to tighten its embrace of China, undermining America’s influence in Asia. The administration’s support for a Muslim community like the Uighurs would seem to be at odds with Trump’s past anti-Islam comments and his executive orders that bar the citizens of several Muslim-majority countries from the United States. But the case of the Uighurs is useful in two political contexts. One is to rally international support for Trump’s attempts to beat back growing Chinese global power. The other is as part of the Trump administration’s campaign to promote global religious freedom, an initiative designed to appeal to Trump’s evangelical Christian supporters who fear for their religious brethren in China and beyond. The Trump administration has already imposed economic and visa sanctions on Chinese officials who have been implicated in the repression and blacklisted Chinese entities that have helped China with its persecution of the Uighurs. Earlier this summer, U.S. lawmakers passed, and Trump signed, a bill that paved the way for many of those sanctions. A genocide or crimes against humanity declaration could make it easier to refer those Chinese officials to international tribunals tasked with investigating and punishing perpetrators of genocide. At the very least, the genocide label would be part of a “name and shame” strategy to hold China accountable and urge it to change its behavior toward the Uighurs, according to a senior administration official. The crime of genocide is generally interpreted to cover acts committed with the intent of destroying a group “in whole or in part,” according to the United Nations. One element can include “measures intended to prevent births” within a group. It’s unclear what sort of data, metrics and sources U.S. officials are presently turning to as they determine whether to use the genocide label. Even if they were to use the label, it’s not clear what the U.S. can do to fulfill any international obligation to try to stop the genocide, beyond imposing sanctions. The situation “would highlight the limits of what any government can do, especially when dealing with a superpower that can block collective action at the United Nations,” a former Obama administration official said. Earlier this year, to rebut the charges, the Chinese Embassy in Washington mounted an exhibition in its lobby with more than 40 panels giving Beijing’s side of the story. The camps, Chinese officials say, are meant to teach Uighurs vocational skills and Mandarin, so they can get jobs. A Chinese Embassy spokesman referred POLITICO to Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Wang Wenbin’s comments on the issue a month ago. “The issue concerning Xinjiang is by no means about human rights, religion or ethnicity, but about combating violent terrorism and separatism,” he said. The embassy spokesman also included a link to a new documentary from a Chinese state-controlled international TV channel titled: “Lies and truth: Vocational education and training in Xinjiang,” which carries a warning that the film “contains scenes that some viewers may find disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.” Trump has made his tough stance on China one of the central planks of his reelection campaign; in recent months, senior administration officials, including Pompeo, O’Brien and Attorney General William Barr have given hawkish speeches laying out the administration’s views on China and its strategy to combat the Chinese Communist Party’s growing power. Trump has also pursued executive actions to check China’s power, such as signing executive orders to crack down on TikTok and WeChat, social media networks that are owned by Chinese companies. But he has said little about human rights in China — notably the Communist Party’s crackdown in Hong Kong, where the Beijing government has gradually encroached on political freedom and rammed through draconian laws in the name of national security. Lawmakers in both parties have grown increasingly critical of China on human rights issues, including the treatment of the Uighurs. More than 75 senators and congressmen, including the top members of several key committees, wrote a letter to Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in early July calling on the administration to “make an official determination as to whether the Chinese government is responsible for perpetrating atrocity crimes, including genocide, against Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslim ethnic minorities.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who helped lead the letter, told POLITICO in a statement that it is "critical for accountability and justice that the United States make a formal determination of whether the atrocities being committed constitute crimes against humanity and genocide.” If Biden wins the presidency in November, China will also be one of his main foreign policy challenges. The former vice president has slammed Beijing over its treatment of the Uighurs, while criticizing Trump for not doing more to help them. “China’s internment of nearly one million Uighur Muslims is among the worst abuses of human rights in the world today,” Biden tweeted last November. “The U.S. cannot be silent — we must speak out against this oppression and relentlessly defend human rights around the world.” “The unspeakable oppression that Uighurs and other ethnic minorities have suffered at the hands of China’s authoritarian government is genocide and Joe Biden stands against it in the strongest terms,” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in an statement. “If the Trump administration does indeed choose to call this out for what it is, as Joe Biden already did, the pressing question is what will Donald Trump do to take action. He must also apologize for condoning this horrifying treatment of Uighurs.” Gregory Stanton, founding president of the nonprofit Genocide Watch, praised the Trump administration for considering the “genocide” label. He said China’s attempts to prevent births among Uighurs can amount to “legal genocide.” “It is time,” he said. “Genocide is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of universal human rights.” Copyright 2020 POLITICO

Last year marked the 25th anniversary of the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda. During one hundred days in 1994, Hutu extremists slaughtered over one million people, primarily Tutsi as well as Hutu and others who opposed the genocide. Learning from the Genocide against the Tutsi provides crucial insight into averting conflict and fostering more inclusive communities. The current era of deep political, racial, class, and gender divisions and ongoing atrocity crimes around the world compel such reflection. Professor Zachary D. Kaufman, an expert on genocide, will discuss ten lessons we should learn from Rwanda to prevent further bloodshed and build more representative societies. Zachary D. Kaufman, J.D., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Houston Law Center, and previously held academic appointments at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford University, and New York University. He has edited or authored three books and is currently working on a fourth book, about the law and politics of bystanders and upstanders. Professor Kaufman has served in all three branches of the U.S. government and in three war crimes tribunals (including the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). Click here to register for the webinar Learn more about the Genocide against the Tutsi in our previous webinars on the topic