Lest any think that ethnically-targeted violence in Darfur has ended, recent dispatches from Radio Dabanga and other sources should serve as a sharp correction. Khartoum’s regular forces (Sudan Armed Forces/SAF), as well as its militia allies (especially the Rapid Support Forces/RSF) continue their brutal assaults and predations—often before the very eyes of UN/African union “peacekeeping” force. Some of the incidents reported below (by Radio Dabanga) are connected to the major military assault the Khartoum regime ordered in rebel-controlled areas near Jebel Marra—but many are not. The sheer geographic diversity of the assaults suggests how violent Darfur as a whole remains, and how terrifyingly insecure the region remains for those displace persons—overwhelmingly of non-Arab/African ethnicity—by violence over the past 15 years. do That there is no international response of significance to this violence—and that it has been left for a weak, incompetent, and much reduced UN/African Union Mission (UNAMID) to control—is a sign of how invisible the Darfur genocide has become. Once a “human rights cause célèbre,” Darfur has been almost wholly abandoned. And once Khartoum decides to move aggressively with its long-promised plans to dismantle IDP camps, those forced from the camps will be extremely difficult for humanitarian relief workers to access, even as access is already badly compromised by various regime-imposed measures. This has had terrible effects on the roughly 3 million people the UN acknowledges are either internally displaced or refugees in eastern Chad. More than half a million people have already died from the direct and indirect effects of genocidal counter-insurgency violence. Many tens of thousands of girls and women—yet again, overwhelmingly non-Arab/African—have been the victims of the cruelest sexual violence. And the worst of the dying and suffering may very well be yet to come… ******************************************************** • Rapid Support Forces militiamen plunder market in Darfur’s Jebel Marra | Radio Dabanga, March 26, 2018 | JEBEL MARRA Two people were wounded in an attack reportedly by paramilitaries of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on villagers in southern Jebel Marra on Saturday. Speaking to Radio Dabanga, listeners said that RSF troops riding in 25 Land Cruisers, backed by others on more than 70 camels and horses, shot a group of people on their way to the weekly market of Kara on Saturday afternoon. “When the janjaweed neared the market, they began shooting around them. Adam Waddoura and Amran Ahmed were seriously wounded by the bullets,” a villager reported. “They then proceeded to the market, where they beat the people with their whips and sticks before they plundered the shops and robbed all the customers of their goods, money, mobile phones, and donkeys. RSF plunder weekly market market in Kara, Jebel Marra • Darfur: Deadly fighting continues in east and south Jebel Marra | Radio Dabanga, March 23, 2018 | JEBEL MARRA Fierce fighting is reportedly ongoing across wide areas to the east and south of Darfur’s Jebel Marra, following movement of government forces and militias on rebel-held positions this week. The fighting has left an unknown number of civilians and combatants dead and wounded, and displaced thousands. On Thursday afternoon, fleeing civilians told Radio Dabanga that Sara Ali Haroun and three of her children Musab, Hassan, and Hussein were killed during the fighting at Sina area southeast of Jebel Marra, which are the last strongholds of the forces of the mainstream Sudan Liberation Movement led by Abdelwahid El Nur (SLM-AW). One of the survivors of the fighting told Radio Dabanga, that yesterday the clashes were renewed north of Sina area which was captured by the government forces from the movement on Wednesday. He said thousands of families have been displaced from Feina area after government forces and their militias burned all the food stocks in the villages and left the civilians in a very poor humanitarian situation. He appealed to humanitarian and human rights organisations to urgently intervene to save thousands of fleeing civilians and provide food and urgent protection to them. Some of those displaced by recent violence in Jebel Marra • Civilians dead, many left homeless as Sudan forces strafe rebel positions in Darfur’s Jebel Marra | Radio Dabanga, March 22, 2018 | JEBEL MARRA Three civilians were sh ot dead and 12 others were wounded in an attack launched by government troops and militia at Feina and Dawa areas in East Jebel Marra on Wednesday morning. Witnesses have reported ‘heavy military casualties’ but no exact figures are available yet. The areas are the last stronghold of the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Abdelwahid El Nur (SLM-AW) south of Jebel Marra. Reports of many displaced continue to reach this station (see pictures). Ezzeldin Sambala, the movement’s military spokesman, told Radio Dabanga that “the government forces attacked the movement’s positions, which led to the displacement of civilians from their homes. He said that villages were burned and the livestock seized. It is a humanitarian disaster for the people. More of those displaced by violence in Jebel Marra • Militiamen besiege Dambar in Central Darfur | Radio Dabanga, March 26, 2018 | DAMBAR Security tensions in the southeast of Mukjar locality in Central Darfur have caused the closure of the Dambar Market since Friday. “A large group of heavily armed militiamen on motorcycles surrounded the market of Dambar on Friday morning,” a resident of the town reported to Radio Dabanga. “Fearing an attack, the traders immediately closed their shops and stalls.” The source said that the reasons for the siege are unknown. “They just came out of the blue,” he said. • Central Darfur sheikh abducted, merchants beaten by Rapid Support Forces | Radio Dabanga, March 20, 2018 | DIMO The Sheikh of Dimo village, 35 km north of Nierteti in Central Darfur, was beaten and abducted by members of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia on Saturday. The militia also beat two market traders. • Two women dead, two men injured in South Darfur livestock raid | Radio Dabanga, March | 19, 2018 | GOKO Two women were killed and two men injured in an attack by gunmen on Goko village north of Nyala, capital of South Darfur on Saturday night. Witnesses told Radio Dabanga that the gunmen riding camels and horses attacked the village, and stole 81 head of cattle and 35 goats and sheep. When the owners of the livestock confronted them, they opened fire and killed Aisha Yagoub and Maryam Suleiman and seriously wounded Hamid Mousa and Hamid Yousef. Abduction On Thursday three displaced people were abducted by militiamen in Central Darfur. The kidnappers have demanded a ransom of SDG 30,000 ($for their release. El Shafee Abdallah, the coordinator of Central Darfur camps reported that on Thursday militias attacked three displaced people while collecting firewood at Sinan Kar area west of Zalingei, took them to an unknown destination, called their relatives and then demanded a ransom of SDG 30,000 (*$1,666) for the release of Suleiman Ibrahim, Adil Mohamed and Fuoad Mohamed. Residents of Dimo village told Radio Dabanga that members of the RSF in a land cruiser mounted with a Dushka machinegun attacked Adam Abdelmawla while he was tilling his farm at Dimo village. The reportedly beat him and threw him into the vehicle at gunpoint and took him to an unknown destination. They said they reported the incident to the police at Sagadir near Nierteti. At the market of Sagadir, RSF elements reportedly beat merchants Abakar Eisa and Haroun Yagoub and tortured them for six hours. Merchants in the market told Radio Dabanga that RSF elements beat Abakar Eisa, a shoe dealer on the pretext that the prices for his shoes are too high. They said the same forces also attacked Haroun Yagoub on charges of buying and supplying sorghum to the armed movements. • Herders chop-off North Darfur farmer’s hand | Radio Dabanga, March 15, 2018 | JEBEL MARRA / KUTUM Armed herders have stabbed a farmer and chopped-off his hand in Tawila locality (popularly known as eastern Jebel Marra) in North Darfur on Wednesday. A relative of the victim told Radio Dabanga that three armed herders attacked farmer Mohamed Ahmed Hamid while he was tilling his farm at area Suri area near Khazan Tunjur, ordered him to immediately leave the farm as the area has become a pasture not for farming, and when he refused, one of the herders chopped-off his right hand with a sword. Hamid lost a lot of blood and was taken in critical condition to Tawila Hospital. He said the herders told them that what happened to Hamid is a warning to anyone else who comes to the area to farm or collect hay. The herders reportedly threatened to kill anyone else, and not just cut-off their hand. Kutum A number of farmers were injured at Tuma village, 10 km east of Kutum in North Darfur by beatings and flogging by herders. Witnesses told Radio Dabanga that on Saturday armed herders riding two Land Cruisers led by Ibrahim Abubaker attacked Tuma village where the residents returned last month as part of the voluntary return, beat and injured them, one of them named El Fadil Mohamed Ali was seriously • Sudan Armed Forces raid Darfur market: eight held, six injured | Radio Dabanga, March 13, 2018 | DERIBAT / TAWILA / KABKABIYA Members of the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) stationed at Deribat in Darfur’s east Jebel Marra stormed the weekly village market, assaulted the people, arrested eight of them and injured six others on Sunday morning.Residents of Deribat reported that the members of the SAF arrested Yahya Ahmed Hussein, Abulbasher Abdelrazig, Mubarak Haroun, Younis Ali, Abdeljabbar Ali Idris, Kubra Adam Musa, Mariam Ibrahim, and Kaltoum Sharif Adam. A merchant from the weekly market, which brings together all residents of nearby villages, said that the storming of the market by troops terrorised the shoppers and prompted them to flee the market. He said the troops also attacked the shoppers with rifle butts and daggers causing injuries to Hashim Haroun Abdelkarim, Salim Mohamed Ibrahim, Sara Yagoub Eisa, Musa Yousif Haroun, Mariam Abakar Hussain, and Suleiman Yousif Hamid. He added that the troops also prevented vehicles coming from Nyala in South Darfur and El Fasher in North Darfur from loading goods from the market and forced them to return empty. Tawila On Sunday the security services arrested Abdelnasir Abdelrahman Abdallah from the market of Tawila in North Darfur without explanation, took him to the security offices in Tawila and denied him visit by his family members. Activists in Tawila called for his immediate release or trial and allowing his family and lawyers to visit him. Kabkabiya Members of the main government Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia arrested two people from Kabkabiya and took them to Sarf Umra in North Darfur on Sunday. • New settlers assault, drive-off East Darfur returnees | Radio Dabanga | March 15, 2018 | ED DAEIN Two displaced people who returned to Areit village in Asalaya locality in East Darfur were injured and forcibly returned in an attack by new settlers who refused to accept their return to their area of origin on Sunday. Sheikhs from camp Neem in Ed Daein told Radio Dabanga that 400 displaced people returned to the village on Sunday according to voluntary repatriation programmes, but the settlers in the village refused their return, assaulted them and injured Adam Yousef and Ahmad Omar Adam who were taken to the state capital Ed Daein for treatment. The sheikhs said that the displaced returned to camp Neem on Monday morning on the orders of the locality commissioner, Hamdan Adam El Bushra, so as to prevent further violence and clashes. The camp sheikhs stressed their attachment to their land, and appealed to the government authorities to extend the prestige of the state, provide services in the villages where they had been displaced from, as well as the removal of agricultural lands from the settlers and returning them to the indigenous people. [The UN–while quick to claim credit for the returns of displaced Darfuris–never acknowledges the failure of these returns, which are far too often impossible to sustain, given the level of intense insecurity–ER] • SRF condemns government raid on Central Darfur village – Video | Radio Dabanga, March 14, 2018 | ARTALA The Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF) has strongly condemned attacks by Sudanese government forces on the inhabitants of Artala village in Central Darfur. A statement issued by the Revolutionary Front said that the tribal militias of the government and its security services gathered the residents of the village in a humiliating manner after they were confirmed to be free of weapons, beat them with whips and seized their property. Mohamed Zakariya, the spokesman for the SRF, described what happened to the residents of the village as “a shameful state crime against unarmed people and a blatant violation of the rights of citizenship.” In its statement, the SRF also condemned the ongoing crackdown on freedoms and the arrest of activists by the security services and reiterated its call for the immediate and unconditional release of all the political detainees and the prisoners of war. Video at: https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/srf-condemns-government-raid-on-central-darfur-village • Darfur: Government forces, rebels clash in Jebel Marra | Radio Dabanga, March 12, 2018 | JAWA Three villagers were wounded during clashes between government forces and rebel combatants in South Darfur’s East Jebel Marra on Friday. A relative of one of the victims told Radio Dabanga that Ishag Idris, Daoud Haroun, and Hussein Hamid were injured when they were caught in an exchange of fire between members of the Sudan Liberation Movement, led by Abdelwahid El Nur (SLM-AW), and government troops on Friday evening. “They were hit by bullets in the area of Jawa, 15 km south of Deribat,” he said. “Luckily, they could be transferred to Rabkona, west of Jawa, for treatment.” Since the start of the war in Darfur in 2003, the area of Jawa has been one of the strongholds of the SLM-AW, that had its base in Jebel Marra itself. In 2016, more than 80,000 people were displaced by a major military offensive by the Sudanese government against the holdout rebels in the mountainous region of the Jebel Marra. According to the spokesman for the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, Sudan’s main militia, in February 2017, Darfur became “free of armed movements, suspects, and outlaws, except for a small group [part of the SLM-AW] stationed at the top of Jebel Marra.” In April that year, after a relative calm for months, the Sudanese air force resumed bombing Jawa because of reported movement of rebel fighters in the area. http://sudanreeves.org/2018/03/26/genocide-without-end-ethnically-targeted-violence-in-darfur-continues/ (C) 2018 SUDAN Research, Analysis, and Advocacy

This month, Poland marks fifty years since the “March events” of 1968, when mass protests erupted in response to the stagnant Communist regime of Władysław Gomułka and its campaign of censorship and chicanery directed at Jews and intellectuals. The anniversary comes at a time when the current government is facing criticism at home and across the world for undermining free speech and the independent judiciary, and for refusing to take in any refugees. Among its crude moves to establish ideological control at home and flout opinion in the West is a recently passed amended law criminalizing claims that the Poles were complicit in or jointly responsible for the Holocaust. The law certainly invites comparisons between now and 1968. This time around, though, Poland’s government is not backed by Moscow; its current isolation is from both West and East, and the country seems to be caught, not for the first time, in a vise—ideal conditions for a new cycle of xenophobic hysteria and bigotry. There is nothing so reminiscent of Communist-era censorship culture as the coercive, patronizing ideological commentaries with which cultural officials of the Law and Justice party, also known by its Polish initials as PiS, have in the last few years been responding to books, plays, and films related to the Holocaust. When Paweł Pawlikowski’s film Ida, about a convent novice who discovers she is Jewish, was shown on Polish television in 2016, it was framed by an introduction and “discussion” by state-approved experts, who kindly explained to the unsuspecting viewer how the film “insults the Polish nation.” Last month, the cover of the newsletter of the Institute for National Remembrance (IPN) which is at the center of the latest efforts to defend Poland’s “good name,” showed a photo of concentration camp inmates on the top half of the page and, on the bottom half, a photo of smiling Nazi officers, with the bold title “Germans Dealt This Fate to People.” The visual message—the Germans are the historical villains—is clear enough for a non-Polish audience, but the title is a more specific reference to, and subversion of, a classic literary text commonly used in Polish high schools to teach the history of the Holocaust. In 1946, the eminent Polish novelist Zofia Nałkowska (1884–1954) published a slim, devastating collection of prose titled Medallions (available in Englishsince 2000 in an excellent translation by Diana Kuprel) and gave it the epigraph Ludzie ludziom zgotowali ten los: “People dealt this fate to people.” In the hands of Poland’s current state arbiters of truth, a statement about human evil (inviting readers to inhabit it and reflect on their own potential for good and evil) must be shrunk and adapted to a narrow partisan view of history. There are grounds for worrying whether the plan is to carry out such a shrink-fit operation on all of Polish culture. On February 7, Andrzej Melak, a Law and Justice member of parliament, called for Medallions to be provided with editorial commentary. He had discovered that Nałkowska uses phrases the recent Polish legislation was designed to combat. In the last piece in the collection, “The Adults and Children of Auschwitz,” Nałkowska writes: “Not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of human beings underwent manufacture into raw materials and goods in the Polish death camps.” And a few paragraphs later: “The Germans promised Jews arrested in Italy, Holland, Norway, and Czechoslovakia prime working conditions in Polish camps.” (My italics, in both cases.) There is the phrase, not mentioned in the recent law but reflecting precisely the language against which the amendment is aimed. Nałkowska is beyond the reach of a legal suit, and the wording of the law suggests it will not be applied to historians or artists, but this only raises the question of how and to whom it will be applied. In a statement in English on its website, the IPN points to “the media” as chiefly responsible for what it considers the repeated slander of Poland, but the fact that many scholars and artists involved in the debate on Polish-Jewish history are also regular contributors to media outlets makes it clear that they, too, may be liable for prosecution if their views receive a sufficiently wide airing. The sociologist and journalist Karolina Wigura wrote in a recent article that the law was drafted as if to shut up a single person: the historian Jan T. Gross, who broke the silence that had formed around the story of the Jedwabne massacre—in which the town’s Jews were killed on the streets and in their homes or rounded up and burned in a barn—and stubbornly defends his thesis that the Poles “actually killed more Jews than Germans during the war.” As Gross has said himself, though, the government did not need the new law to harass him, and it makes more sense to see the legislation as the Law and Justice party’s way of playing to its own far-right nationalist constituency. In doing so, the government has only exposed its provincialism and insecurity. As soon as the new “Holocaust law” entered into force this month, a non-profit group called Reduta Dobrego Imienia (literally “The Good Name’s Redoubt,” usually translated as “The League Against Defamation”) moved to bring a civil suit against an Argentinian daily, Pagina 12, for having sullied Poland’s honor. The offense was “mixing two threads”: that of the Jedwabne massacre, and the story of the “doomed soldiers” (żółnierzy wyklęci) of the Polish nationalist resistance during and after World War II. Train stations across Poland have been decorated this March with IPN-sponsored posters commemorating these soldiers, who are an important part of the Polish history right-wing commentators feel has been neglected. The fact that the Argentinian editors illustrated an article on the agonizing subject of Jedwabne with a photograph of Polish soldiers was like waving a red rag to a bull. * The eight grim tales that make up Medallions were the result of Zofia Nałkowska’s work as a member of the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes, which was established in the spring of 1945. The Commission (in 1949 renamed “for Nazi Crimes”) was the institutional precursor of the IPN, and its history illustrates the perils of entrusting the legislation of historical truth to a state institution. Launched under the aegis of the postwar Polish government (led by Moscow-trained Communists), the Commission always acted under the influence of political imperatives. Should its members have come across evidence of Soviet war crimes (such as the Katyń massacre of Polish officers), they were obliged to ignore or obfuscate them, just as all Poles were under the strongest possible pressure to refer to the Soviets as “liberators” instead of “occupiers.” Despite these severe limitations, the Commission did invaluable work in documenting the Nazis’ campaign of mass murder and enslavement in Poland, and Nałkowska’s own prose, exemplary in its purity and sobriety, captures its horrors better than any other work of literature I know, except the writings of Holocaust survivors. The Commission, in which Jewish lawyers, researchers, and a few remaining representatives of Jewish communities participated, collected and preserved German documents, interviewed witnesses and perpetrators, and helped prepare the trials of the main criminals of the Nazi-occupied General-Government: Rudolf Hess, Hans Frank, Amon Goeth, Jürgen Stroop, and their fellows. At this moment in Polish history, when the Institute of National Remembrance is crying out against what it calls the “deficit of historical truth” in the attribution of guilt for the Holocaust, it is important to note that the Commission charged Polish collaborators, too. But when loyal servants of Stalin consolidated their hold on the Polish state after 1949, the Commission’s activities were curtailed and fully subordinated to Communist-dominated prosecutors’ offices. For over a decade, the Commission was powerless to do much except preserve the documentation that had already been gathered. In the 1960s, party ideologues reactivated the Commission, but this time it was purged and put to use as an instrument for the shameful state-sponsored campaign of antisemitism that led to the emigration of a large part of Poland’s remaining Jews. Under a new director, Czesław Pilichowski, himself a former member of the extreme-right movement ONR (Obóz Narodowo-Radykalny, or National Radical Camp), the Commission approved a new policy “to rebut the slanderous campaign of lies” about antisemitism in Poland. Jewish intellectuals were publicly accused of slandering Poland, supposedly with the aid of both Zionists and neo-Nazis. Many of them, including Jan Gross, spent time in prison. As the successor to this tainted institution, the current Institute of National Remembrance is just as subject to the changing tides of political power. Under the Law and Justice administration, it was the Institute that drafted this new law; but under another government in 2001–2004, the Institute carried out a thorough and entirely creditable investigation into the Jedwabne massacre, whose “perpetrators sensu stricto,” the prosecutor Radosław Ignatiew found, were local Poles. Incorporating the earlier commissions, the IPN came into being in 1998 as primarily the keeper of a great hoard of documents, those left by the Communist-era secret service. In the lugubrious game of competitive martyrology that Poland seems to be playing again, millions of documents of Communist crimes are pitted against millions of documents of Nazi crimes. It is a pitifully accountant-like approach to the immeasurable losses and injuries of war, as many have remarked. Missing from the current debate about what can and cannot be said about history is the presence, so strongly evoked in Nałkowska’s brief stories, of the dead themselves. In Poland, as in virtually every country that has been occupied by hostile powers, the dead are unsettling presences not just because they are dead but also because invoking their real presences means acknowledging the humiliation involved in the kind of choices people were forced to make in wartime. In their statement, the historians at the IPN make the astonishing assertion that “the truth never humiliates.” But as much as we want them to sit still for us as martyrs (or criminals), the dead contain a discomfiting mixture of guilt and innocence. Some of the Polish soldiers who fought the Nazis and the Communists also engaged in murderous actions against Jews. Those whose identity and national pride are bound up with those soldiers may well feel humiliated by that fact. In a democracy, these complicated realities of human history cannot be left for state officials to adjudicate. These moral knots are the stuff from which the greatest Polish literature has sprung. This is why the kind of insidious ideological control that has returned to Poland under the Law and Justice party is so disturbing and bizarre. In its cultural mission abroad, the Polish government has been industriously promoting awareness and celebration of historical figures that it feels are neglected, including the Polish citizens honored by Yad Vashem as Righteous among the Nations. Through its Book Institute, Poland has also been pushing authors regarded by the present regime as solidly “patriotic,” such as the poet and noted scholar of Romanticism, Jarosław Marek Rymkiewicz. At a state-funded conference on Polish literature in translation held in Kraków last summer and organized by the Book Institute, all conference participants were welcomed with a gift bag including a big new Polish edition of the collected poems of Jan Polkowski, a Catholic poet of undeniable gifts who was active in Solidarity in the 1980s and is now one of the PiS government’s most fervent literary adherents. The bag also included a notebook bearing the handsome countenance of Joseph Conrad, who, trapped in Kraków at the outbreak of World War I, was berated by members of his own family for not being enough of a Polish patriot. Today, Poland needs Conrad, not as the face of national pride, but for his sense of tragic irony, of noble aims subverted by blind forces, his warnings that human knowledge is contingent, provisional. To try to fix a country’s history and victim status by force of law is both foolish and futile. Like Holocaust denial laws, the Polish law will not stop people from saying things the Poles find offensive. It also leads the government immediately into inconsistencies. The Polish government resents the judgment laid upon it by the European Court of Human Rights for facilitating the CIA’s torture program—both by making available a building in the town of Stare Kiejkuty that was used to interrogate terror suspects, brutally and unlawfully, in 2002 and 2003, and by letting the US use an airport to fly detainees in and out. But when it is the United States that Poland is helping, turns of phrase suggestive of complicity (“Polish black sites”) do not excite the same legislative fervor. * There are still considerable differences in government censorship powers between now and half a century ago: in 1968, you could be sent to jail for ten years for “insulting the Polish state.” The Institute of National Remembrance in its new amendment envisions a maximum sentence of three years. In 1968, there was a rigorous system of censorship that had to be countered by an underground publishing scene; these days, the divide is chiefly between state media and commercial channels. The syllabuses and examination reading lists for Polish schools may now reflect the conservative literary taste of the average Law and Justice voter, but I have seen few signs that Poland’s writers and artists, so well trained in defiance, feel seriously inhibited in their work. And not all tides are flowing in the same direction. In 2016, a new “uncensored” edition of Miron Białoszewski’s famous Memoir of the Warsaw Uprising appeared in Poland, restoring a number of passages removed when it was originally published, chiefly descriptions of Polish citizens laughing or cheering at Germans shooting into the Warsaw ghetto. (The recent NYRB Classics edition of Madeline Levine’s extraordinary translation includes these passages.) Writing and research on World War II and antisemitism continues unabated, and there is a large section of Polish society that vociferously resists racial and gender prejudice when it gets wheeled out as a political tool. There are masterly new books out in Poland on the Kielce pogrom of 1946 by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir and on Irena Sendler, one of Poland’s most prized “Righteous Gentiles,” by Anna Bikont. There is every reason to hope the country will choose historical complexity over historical cartoon. At the end of the last chapter of Medallions, Nałkowska mentions a Nazi law that forbade anyone from reproaching members of the Nazi party for past crimes (after all, so many of them had been recruited from the ranks of pimps, thieves, and common murderers). The Law and Justice party is more subtle: it feels entitled to reproach Poles with some crimes, those loosely referred to as “Communist crimes,” but it wishes to protect Poles from being reproached for other crimes in the national past. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/23/scrubbing-polands-complicated-past/ (c) 2018 NYbooks

The streets of the Dardanelles port of Çanakkale were packed with people in a jubilant mood. Beyond the centuries-old forts guarding the strait, Turkish warships rode at anchor on the horizon. Turkish flags of every shape and size waved madly in a wind so strong that the naval manoeuvres and air force fly-bys had to be cancelled. It was 18 March, Çanakkale Victory and Martyrs Day, when Turkey celebrates the anniversary of the British and French navies’ defeat in their 1915 attempt to force their way to Istanbul, then capital of the Ottoman Empire. On the same day, Turkey also honours the Ottoman soldiers who lost their lives as they beat back Allied forces in the Gallipoli campaign that began on 25 April 1915. A previous generation used 18 March mainly to celebrate the memory of Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the republic who made his name as an Ottoman officer defending the heights overlooking the strait. But in today’s Turkey, everything, especially history, is now pressed into the cause of popular support for the policies of the hour. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself appeared in Çanakkale to underline the message of a nation under siege. On all television channels and social media, he could be seen and heard announcing a new victory, this time the capture of the Syrian town of Afrin, taken over by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) with the support of the Turkish military. Images showed bearded FSA men entering Afrin’s centre and residents – among whom men of fighting age were notably absent – tossing rice from roofs and balconies. In the footage, Afrin’s people cheered the removal of banners of Syrian affiliates of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an insurgent group with which Turkey has been engaged in a three-decade long struggle. “What happened in Çanakkale is happening in Afrin. Just like we defeated those who were poised to celebrate their victory in Çanakkale, so have we defeated those who thought they were establishing a corridor of terror on our borders”, President Erdoğan told the crowds. “The wave of terror against Turkey is nothing other than an effort to revive the Çanakkale campaign a century later”. By “wave of terror”, the president meant not just the PKK and its affiliates – but something else as well. Into his narrative of a country under attack Erdoğan wove the failed coup attempt against him in July 2016, apparently mounted by loyalists of Islamist preacher and former ally of the ruling AK Party, Fethullah Gülen, based in the U.S. and labelled “FETO” by Ankara. “Turkish people who rose against the coup forces to protect their country acted in a similar spirit as their forebears did a century earlier”, the president said. In the park and on the waterfront in Çanakkale, the multitudes rejoiced. They recited the anthems they have known by heart since primary school, sometimes swapping Erdoğan’s name for Atatürk’s and Afrin for Çanakkale. The overarching narrative the government has persuaded society to adopt is straightforward. Just as the states that won World War I were stymied by the Turkish war of independence, those same Western powers, the PKK and “FETO” will be foiled by the “new Turkey” that Erdoğan says he is building. And perhaps because this siege mentality was present under Erdoğan’s predecessors, the secularist parties that ruled Turkey, no one seems to notice the logical disconnect: these supposedly perfidious Western powers are Turkey’s allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), as well as being its leading economic partners. President Erdoğan is not alone in promoting this picture of an outside world ranged against Turkey. It was fully endorsed by the head of the right-wing Nationalist Action Party (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, who was re-elected chairman at a party congress not coincidentally held on 18 March. It was Bahçeli who after the June 2015 parliamentary elections called for repeat elections rather than form a coalition with the secularist main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), and the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), which had done surprisingly well at the polls. The MHP head told the congress he approves of the greatly enhanced executive powers that Erdoğan won in the referendum in April 2017: “Tayyip Erdoğan was globally encircled, and we could not escape responsibility”. The apparent unity leaves out large segments of society, however. The MHP welcomed members of other parties, but did not invite HDP, CHP or conservative secularist Iyi Parti representatives to the congress, breaking with a Turkish tradition whereby opponents are welcome at such events. Together, these three parties represent up to 40 percent of the population. The mayor of Çanakkale, a CHP member, did not attend the grand Çanakkale ceremony on 18 March because Erdoğan had ordered that he be barred from speaking. Notably, this mayor had won 54.5 percent of the vote in the 2014 local elections. When I asked passersby in Çanakkale about Erdoğan’s intertwining of party politics, the Afrin operation and past martial triumphs, few really answered me. Some basked in his rhetoric of national pride. Others were reluctant to say anything. After all, courts have jailed more than 70 journalists in Turkey, and police have started judicial proceedings against hundreds of social media users who posted criticism of the Turkish campaign in Syria. I recalled the words of a journalist friend when he returned recently from Hatay, across the border from Afrin: “People are now even scared of commenting about the price of tomatoes”. Still, some in Çanakkale told me they cringed while watching television coverage of the behaviour of FSA fighters in Afrin because they were “shooting in the air like thugs”, or “looking like jihadists” as they chanted “Allahu akbar” (“God is great”). “Our glorious army should not be in the same ranks as these people”, one person said. Whether ideologically aligned with the ruling elite or not, nearly everyone is pleased by the leaps forward in infrastructure that have been the strong suit of Erdoğan’s party. On 18 March 2017, Erdoğan held a signing ceremony for what will be the longest suspension bridge in the world, the Çanakkale 1915 Bridge across the Dardanelles Strait. This year on 18 March he announced that construction would be finished eighteen months ahead of schedule, on 18 March 2022, a year before the centennial of the Republic of Turkey. This bridge is one of many improvements that shorten distances for those headed from Istanbul to Turkey’s Aegean and Mediterranean towns. The happy crowds that gathered in Çanakkale to celebrate the heroic victory of 1915 are a reminder that many Turks are content enough with the current state of affairs, be it for material or ideological reasons. Indeed, Erdoğan seems unlikely to lose soon to opposition politicians who have little in common beyond personal dislike for him. Still, around half the society is aggrieved by his heavy-handed governance. Some of those countries that besieged the Dardanelles Strait a century ago and are framed as “enemies” by today’s narrative have been Turkey’s allies for the past six decades, and share strong interest in the country’s stability, democracy and prosperity. While the critics of Ankara’s political leadership need to recognise that Erdoğan still enjoys considerable domestic support, there is also a good case for Turkey’s leadership to adopt a more inclusive platform – both internally and externally – for what is likely to be many more years of rule. https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/western-europemediterranean/turkey/turkeys-siege-mentality?utm_source=Sign+Up+to+Crisis+Group%27s+Email+Updates&utm_campaign=206f2efb19-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dab8c11ea-206f2efb19-359909997 (c) 2018 International Crisis Group

The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting adopted five resolutions in which it extended the mandates on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Iran, South Sudan and Myanmar. The Council adopted resolutions to extend by a period of one year the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. In a resolution adopted without a vote, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for a period of one year, and it requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide a full report at the Council’s fortieth session on the implementation of the recommendations made by the group of independent experts regarding accountability. By a vote of 27 in favour, four against and 16 abstentions, the Council decided to extend for one year the mandate of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, and it requested the Commission of Inquiry to provide it with an oral update at its thirty-eighth session, as well as to present an updated written report at its thirty-ninth and fortieth sessions. The Council decided by a vote of 21 in favour, 7 against and 19 abstentions, to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran for a further period of one year, and it requested the Special Rapporteur to submit a report on the implementation of the mandate at the Council’s fortieth session and to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session. In a resolution adopted without a vote, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan for a period of one year, and it requested the Commission to present an oral update at the Council’s thirty-ninth session, and to present a comprehensive written report at the Council’s fortieth session. By a vote of 32 in favour, five against and 10 abstentions, the Council decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for a further period of one year, and it requested the Special Rapporteur to present an oral progress report at the Council’s thirty-eighth session, and to submit a report to the Third Committee at the seventy-third session of the General Assembly and to the Council at its fortieth session. Introducing draft texts were Bulgaria on behalf of the European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sweden on behalf of a group of countries, and United States. Syria, Iran, South Sudan and Myanmar spoke as concerned countries, while Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not present in the room to take the floor as a concerned country. Australia, Slovakia on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Iraq, Belgium, Venezuela, United States, and Pakistan spoke in general comments. Cuba, Venezuela, China, Australia, Egypt, Mexico on behalf of a group of countries, Cuba, Brazil, Pakistan, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, Japan, Philippines, United States, and Kyrgyzstan spoke in explanation of the vote. The Council at 3 p.m. will continue taking action on resolutions and decisions before it closes its thirty-seventh session. Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.29) on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, adopted without a vote, the Council reiterates the request… to the High Commissioner to provide a full report at its fortieth session on the implementation of the recommendations made by the group of independent experts on accountability in its report to the Council; and decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 34/24 for a period of one year. The Council urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, through continuous dialogues, to invite and to cooperate fully with all special procedure mandate holders, especially the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to give the Special Rapporteur and supporting staff unrestricted access to visit the country, and to provide them with all information necessary to enable them to fulfil such a mandate, and also to promote technical cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner. Bulgaria, introducing the draft resolution L.28 on behalf of the European Union, said for a decade, the European Union and Japan had been at the forefront of bringing the dire human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the attention of the Human Rights Council, starting with the creation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and later with the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry whose landmark report had been released four years ago. Despite recent high-level talks held between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea being an encouraging signal and a positive step toward the improvement of inter-Korean relations, the European Union and Japan remained deeply concerned by the human rights situation, with on-going, systematic and widespread gross human rights violations taking place in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, some of which might amount to crimes against humanity. It was in the common responsibility as the international community and as members of the Council to ensure that this precarious human rights situation continued to receive the attention it deserved. The draft resolution aimed to address the most pertinent issues related to the human rights situation, and it welcomed steps to strengthen the capacity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including its field-based structure in Seoul. Japan, also introducing the draft resolution L.29, said the text recalled last year’s United Nations General Assembly resolution that underscored very serious concerns regarding reports of abductions and other forms of human rights violations. The international community must continue to maximize pressure on, and strongly urge, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take concrete steps for cooperation with the international community and for the early resolution of the abductions issue. The draft resolution would continue to encourage the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to expedite the process of strengthening its capacity and it welcomed the recent steps taken to this end. The draft resolution also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for another year. Japan called on the Member States of the Council to support the adoption of this draft resolution by consensus, as had been done the previous year. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, was not in the room to take the floor as the concerned country. Cuba, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, noted that the draft resolution was a confrontational step taken towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. As a position of principle, Cuba objected to country-specific mandates as those violated the principles of non-politicization that should be the real principle of this Council. The road of respectful dialogue and non-selectivity, and respect of sovereignty of States, was the only way to resolve human rights concerns. Adopting resolutions like this one would not contribute to the mandate of the Council and Cuba could not support such resolutions. The draft resolution did not provide added value and would not achieve any progress in current issues facing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Venezuela, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated that the draft text was promoting policy against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and stressed that the decision on measures concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must include the country itself. Since this was not the case, Venezuela objected to such an approach and dissociated itself from the resolution. China, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stressed that human rights problems should be resolved through dialogue, and the promotion of a healthy human rights cause. The situation in the Korean Peninsula had recently experienced positive change, and China hoped that all parties would contribute to the amelioration of the situation. The draft text did not promote such an objective and China could not support the draft resolution by consensus. The Council adopted the draft proposal without a vote. Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Syrian Arab Republic In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.38) on the human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, adopted by a vote of 27 in favour, 4 against and 16 abstentions, the Council calls upon all Member States, especially members of the International Syria Support Group, to make renewed efforts to create conditions, including a comprehensive nationwide ceasefire, that support continued negotiations for a political solution to the Syrian conflict, under the auspices of the United Nations Office at Geneva, as only a durable political solution to the conflict can bring an end to the systematic, widespread and gross violations and abuses of international human rights law and violations of international humanitarian law. The Council condemns in the strongest possible terms the continued use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic..., and expresses its strong conviction that those individuals responsible for the use of chemical weapons must be held accountable; also recalls the reports of the Commission of Inquiry, and expresses grave concern at its findings that the Syrian authorities were responsible for the use of sarin on 4 April, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun; and expresses grave concern at numerous continuing allegations of the use of chemical weapons in recent months and weeks, including in Idlib Province and Eastern Ghouta. The Council invites Member States to support actively the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, including by considering the provision of information and data on the most serious crimes under international law committed in the Syrian Arab Republic, and to provide adequate financial means for its functioning; and demands that all parties work towards a genuine political transition, including through the establishment of an inclusive transitional governing body with full executive powers, and urgently work towards the comprehensive implementation of the Geneva communiqué and Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), within the framework of the United Nations-led intra-Syrian talks in Geneva. The Council decides to extend for one year the mandate of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic; requests the Commission of Inquiry to provide an oral update to the Human Rights Council during the interactive dialogue at its thirty-eighth session, and to present an updated written report during an interactive dialogue at the thirty-ninth and fortieth sessions; and decides to transmit all reports and oral updates of the Commission of Inquiry to all relevant bodies of the United Nations, recommends that the General Assembly submit the reports to the Security Council for appropriate action, expresses its appreciation to the Commission for its briefings to members of the Security Council, and recommends the continuation of future briefings. The results of the vote were as follows: In favour (27): Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States. Against (4): Burundi, China, Cuba and Venezuela. Abstentions (16): Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia. United Kingdom, introducing the draft text L.38 on behalf of a group of countries, said the human rights situation in Syria remained as urgent as ever. There was a need to continue shining a spotlight on the terrible events occurring in this country in which the people were enduring the devastating effects of conflict on a daily basis. The draft text had been shaped by the constructive participation of Member States, said the United Kingdom, and highlighted its importance as it renewed the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry. The United Kingdom welcomed the Commission’s findings that the use of unguided bombs in the densely populated area of Atarib market by Russian fixed-wing aircraft might amount to a war crime. Qatar, also introducing the draft resolution L.38, said the text condemned all violations undertaken against the Syrian people and urged the international community to work to end impunity in Syria. The situation on the ground showed once again the disregard of Syria for the relevant United Nations resolutions. Qatar called for the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2401. The draft text under consideration condemned the targeting of civilian infrastructure and other atrocities, and stressed that all rights violators must be held accountable. Qatar reiterated the transparent manner in which the text was drafted. Russia, presenting amendment L.60, said that Russia could not support the draft resolution as submitted to the Council. The statement made by the United Kingdom had been excessively emotional and sought to mislead the international community. It was clear that the genuine purpose of this text was not concerned with the humanitarian needs or the needs of the people of Syria, but the desire to achieve politically motivated goals. The text aimed to shield illegal armed groups from responsibility for the crimes they committed - armed groups which the co-sponsors had provided with political, informational and armed support, and which continued to commit crimes, hold civilians hostage, destroy entire groups on the basis of religious and ethnic affiliation, torture women and children, and conduct mass killings. Nonetheless, the co-sponsors of the draft resolution tried to justify before the public opinion the investments and down payments they had made to these armed groups. Sooner or later those who supported jihadists would need to admit the choices they made, said Russia, noting that the draft resolution contained politicized words and distortions, which remained the hallmark of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other co-sponsors of this resolution. One could hardly have a positive view of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into Syria, said Russia, noting that it presented often unjustified and false information; at the same time, the more than $ 2.5 million that had been used by this Commission could have been used to truly protect and promote human rights, for example by providing technical assistance to the Government. The report contained accusations of the use of chemical weapons, but Russia was convinced that once Syria was freed, an impartial investigation must be conducted to investigate from where the illegal armed groups had received the components for the chemical weapons. The same applied for the supply chain of weapons and technology. The States that sponsored the draft resolution did not want to condemn all those who committed crimes and this desire was predicted by their need to protect and shield those who supported these armed groups; if they truly condemned all those who had committed crimes, then there should be no difficulty in accepting the amendment to the paragraph as proposed. The second amendment proposed by Russia was on the Syrian National Dialogue Congress which had taken place at the end of January 2018, and which was a vital part of the reconstruction of Syria. United Kingdom, as the sponsor of the draft resolution, requested a vote on amendment L.60. Australia, speaking in a general comment, noted that the human rights situation in Syria had been appalling for the past seven years, from the initial brutal response to protests in 2011 to the most recent atrocities in Eastern Ghouta. Australia deplored the use of chemical and other indiscriminate weapons, attacks on civilians, denial of humanitarian access, and the use of siege and starvation tactics, and said that the regime bore the responsibility for the suffering it caused to its own people. Surely it was time to say enough was enough, said Australia, recalling that the Security Council resolution 2401 had already requested an immediate ceasefire. Australia urged all sides to find a political solution and extended its support to the Commission of Inquiry. Slovakia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said that the resolution not only condemned violence but also called for an immediate action to implement Security Council resolution 2401, and expressed full support for the United Nations led efforts to secure a political solution. The European Union welcomed the extension of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry, and noted that during the high-level panel on the violation of human rights of Syrian children and the presentation of the report by the Commission of Inquiry, this Council’s session had witnessed heinous violations of human rights in Syria. Security Council resolution 2401 remained largely unobserved due to the continued ground offensive and aerial bombardment as well as deliberate targeting of civilians and medical infrastructure in Eastern Ghouta, by the regime supported by Russia and Iran. The European Union had allocated over €10.4 billion to date for humanitarian and resilience assistance to the Syrians, and the second Brussels Syria Conference afforded a further opportunity to establish peace. Finally, the European Union urged States to bring to an end the suffering of the Syrian people. Switzerland, speaking in a general comment, remained concerned over all the violations of human rights in Syria and commended the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission of Inquiry and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism which would allow for their greater cooperation. Switzerland opposed the proposed amendment which attempted to weaken the draft resolution which reaffirmed the central role of the United Nations in promoting peace in Syria. Iraq, in a general comment, said that the world was witnessing the Syrian crisis enter its eighth year. The world must not ignore the adversities and challenges in Syria and it must address the conflict without selectivity in order to develop a comprehensive solution. Iraq had been involved in the consultations on the draft text and had attempted to make it more balanced; however, because the current version would not contribute to bringing an end to the conflict, Iraq would abstain from the vote. Belgium, in a general comment, said that Belgium would oppose the amendment tabled by Russia. The text of the resolution, as it stood, contained strong language condemning terrorism, while Russian proposals had no direct link with human rights and went beyond the currently agreed language in the United Nations. Belgium would vote against the amendment and urged other States to do the same. Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, supported amendment L.60 put forward by Russia and underlined the importance of its paragraph 7 which strongly condemned all terrorist attacks. Venezuela would vote in favour of the proposed amendment. United States, speaking in a general comment, strongly supported the draft resolution and the extension of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry, and welcomed the resolution’s strong condemnation of systematic abuses of human rights carried out by the Syrian Government and its allies. The conflict had led to the displacement of millions of people and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The Commission of Inquiry had helped to provide necessary documentation to hold those responsible to account. The United States reiterated the call for a political solution to the conflict and called upon all Member States of the Council to support the draft resolution and vote no to the tabled amendment, which the Russian delegation had put forward after failing to participate in either of the two public informal consultations. Refusing to engage in negotiations and then filing last-minute hostile amendments undermined this Council and made a mockery of all those who had participated constructively in the negotiation process. Syria, speaking as the concerned country, said the draft resolution was not an acceptable approach to deal with the situation in the country. Co-sponsors of the draft sought to achieve political goals through the text. Those States had no legitimacy to present a draft on Syria as some continued to occupy parts of Syria or contributed support to terrorists in the country. The draft was an insult to Syria and ignored a long list of crimes committed by other States. The co-sponsors were using unreliable information and the draft lacked neutrality. Syria hoped that those speaking about the suffering of Syrians would address the recent bombings perpetrated by co-sponsors of the draft. The extension of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry would only serve to prolong the war, said Syria and called on the Council’s Member States to vote against the draft. Action on Amendment L.60 Australia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, strongly opposed the amendment, which Australia said would introduce new language on terrorism. The draft resolution already condemned all terrorist organizations as designated by the Security Council, and Australia was concerned that the amendment would be used to further justify the horrors on the population of Syria. The amendment also spoke of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, but did not refer to the negotiated and agreed United Nations Security Council and the Human Rights Council resolutions. Australia agreed on the role of the Special Envoy on Syria appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and regretted that Russia had not proposed its amendment in the two open consultations. Australia would vote no on this amendment and encouraged all other States to do the same. The Council then rejected the amendment L.60, with 8 votes in favour, 25 against and 14 abstentions. Action on Draft Resolution L.38 Egypt, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Egypt was at a loss of words to express solidarity with the Syrian people who had been paying the price of the conflict for seven years. Egypt closely followed the situation and its impact on the Middle East at large, and said that Egypt usually rejected resolutions under agenda items 4 which were not accepted by the concerned State. The draft resolution continued to be unbalanced, especially when it came to the identification of perpetrators, and was using information from inaccurate sources. There was more than one reference to the International Criminal Court in the text and the position of Egypt in this regard was well-known, and additionally, Egypt had not supported the resolution that had established the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism. For all those reasons, Egypt would abstain from the vote. Mexico, in an explanation of the vote before the vote that was also on behalf of Brazil, Peru and Panama, said that the report of the Commission of Inquiry had demonstrated serious human rights abuses. The draft resolution could have been more balanced and could have reflected different types of responsibilities that all State and non-State actors held. At the same time, Brazil, Peru, Panama and Mexico were concerned about the escalating situation in Syria and the lack of humanitarian access. Thus, those four countries would vote in favour, although they deeply regretted that their proposals had been rejected - they believed all countries should refrain from arms transfer that would further destabilize the region. There was a moral responsibility to reject gains generated from arms sales when such gains were obtained on the expense of lives of civilians. Cuba, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated its horror at the death of civilians in any circumstances and rejected approaches that singled out one party to the conflict as solely responsible. Interventionist agendas would not lead to a solution of the crisis and Cuba rejected persistent challenges to the territorial integrity of Syria. Cuba reaffirmed its support for a peaceful, just and negotiated solution to the conflict, and requested that the draft resolution be put to a vote, and said it would vote against it. Brazil, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Syria and expressed support for the renewal of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry. All Syrians deserved respect for their human rights and human rights violators must be held accountable, stressed Brazil. Noting that the draft text retained imbalances from previous texts, it urged the Human Rights Council to unequivocally condemn the transfer of weapons that was exacerbating the conflict. Brazil also condemned any use of chemical weapons and said it would vote in favour of the draft. Pakistan, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Pakistan was seriously concerned about the human rights of Syrians. The situation was grave, and the world could not afford a blame game and politicization. Pakistan believed in a solution that would respect the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Syria and stressed that the challenges could only be overcome by a Syrian-led coalition. Pakistan also believed in a solution that would condemn violations by all sides. The killing of innocents must end, and for that, an impartial and non-selective approach was needed. There could not be favourites. Finally, Pakistan supported dialogue, and said that all parties must respect international humanitarian and human rights law. Pakistan had participated in the consultations in a constructive manner and had tried to balance the text; because the draft fell short of consensus and would reinforce divisions and not bridge them, Pakistan would refrain from voting for this draft resolution. China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said China believed that a political solution was a fundamental approach to human rights in Syria and that the discussion should respect the Syrian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. The international community should facilitate a political solution, mitigate the situation and combat terrorism. Since the draft resolution did not conform to those principles, it was not conducive to ensuring peace, and China therefore would vote against. Ecuador, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, expressed concern about the serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law by all parties to the conflict, and in particular the violations against refugees, medical staff, civil society groups, civilians, and protectors of cultural heritage. In many cases humanitarian aid was instrumentalized as a weapon of war. Ecuador maintained its position of not supporting resolutions against certain countries which prejudged situations and helped unilateral actions. Those resolutions did not help human rights in the countries concerned, they undermined a constructive dialogue, and compromised diplomatic solutions. Ecuador regretted that the draft resolution did not hold accountable all parties involved, which aggravated violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, destabilized the region as a whole, and exacerbated the negative impact of arms transfer and illicit arms trade. For all those reasons, Ecuador would abstain from the resolution. Venezuela, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Venezuela would vote against the draft resolution and continued to condemn double standards contained in the L.38 which did not provide any benefits to victims of human rights abuses. Situation in Syria called for a genuine commitment to find politically negotiated outcome, taking into account national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Council then adopted the draft resolution L.38, by a vote of 27 in favour, 4 against and 16 abstentions. Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.39) on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, adopted by a vote of 21 in favour, 7 against and 19 abstentions, the Council decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran for a further period of one year, and requests the Special Rapporteur to submit a report on the implementation of the mandate to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session and to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session; and calls upon the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to permit access to visit the country as well as all information necessary to allow the fulfilment of the mandate. The results of the vote were as follows: In favour (21): Australia, Belgium, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States. Against (7): Burundi, China, Cuba, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Venezuela. Abstentions (19): Afghanistan, Angola, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kenya, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Togo and Tunisia. Sweden, introducing draft resolution L.39 on behalf of a group of countries, said the draft was a short procedural text to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a period of one year. Sweden welcomed the work carried out by the previous Special Rapporteur, the late Asma Jahangir. Sweden noted the increased engagement of Iran with Special Procedures and urged Tehran to allow a visit to the country by the next Special Rapporteur. Sweden hoped the draft would be adopted by consensus. Slovakia, in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union remained committed to engaging in a constructive dialogue with Iran. The European Union supported the work of the Special Rapporteur and noted the improved engagement of Iran with the Special Procedures. The European Union called on Iran to fully cooperate with the next Special Rapporteur and invited all Human Rights Council members to join consensus on the draft. Pakistan requested a vote on draft resolution L.39. External interference through country specific resolutions was counterproductive. Iran had cooperated with the United Nations human rights bodies through the Universal Periodic Review and treaty body mechanisms. Iran had also accepted the majority of recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review, showing its willingness to adhere to international human rights standards. Engagement and not estrangement was the way to promote human rights. Since the draft resolution was not in conformity with views shared by Pakistan, Pakistan would vote against it. Iran, speaking as the concerned country, said that it firmly believed in the respect of human rights, which was why it had adopted a constructive approach, both internally and externally. The Government recently adopted amendments to the anti-narcotics law, which had been recognized as progress by the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner. Iran was actively engaged in the implementation of recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review. In 2017, the landslide re-election of President Rouhani, who had campaigned on a platform of stronger human rights promotion, showed the importance that the country attached to human rights. Every delegate understood that the draft resolution on Iran was not about human rights aims, but about the continued abuse of the procedures for narrow political purposes. The authors of the resolution on Iran continued in their orchestrated efforts toward reproducing an unjustified and politically motivated resolution. The appointment of the Special Rapporteur for Iran was unnecessary and inappropriate. Iran reiterated its genuine intention to conduct constructive cooperation with the United Nations human rights mechanisms, including the Council thematic mandate holders. Australia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Iran and said it would like to see progress there. It appreciated the periodic reporting produced by the Special Rapporteur, which afforded impartial insight into the situation in Iran. It was saddened to learn of the death of the Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir and looked forward to the appointment of a new Special Rapporteur in due course. Brazil, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it would abstain in the vote on the draft resolution on Iran. Despite legitimate concern on the human rights situation, Brazil welcomed the efforts by the Government to improve the situation. It noted the initiatives on reforming capital punishment as a first move in the right direction. Brazil hoped that this would bring about positive change. Brazil’s decision to abstain had taken into consideration the Iranian political will to engage with the international human rights system, through the Universal Periodic Review and other mechanisms. Brazil’s decision must be seen as an incentive for Iran to continue on a constructive track. Brazil remained concerned about human rights violations, especially of women, children, human rights defenders, journalists, and religious groups, among others, and took the opportunity to reaffirm the aspirations of the Bahai’s to peacefully exercise their human rights in the country. It was saddened to learn of the death of the Special Rapporteur. Mexico, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it would vote in favour of the draft. The report presented by the late Special Rapporteur reflected persistent challenges in Iran and the growing desire in the country to work with the international community. Mexico welcomed Tehran’s increased cooperation with international human rights mechanisms. Dialogue and cooperation were essential to strengthening the institutional capacity of States. Mexico remained concerned over the application of the death sentence and the human rights of women. Venezuela, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the draft did not promote dialogue and cooperation. The draft was an instrument for political confrontation and reflected the manipulation of a few super powers. Venezuela continued to reject selective practices targeted at certain States and would vote against the draft. Cuba, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the mandate on Iran was a clear display of discriminatory practices against certain States. Cuba reaffirmed its opposition to country-specific mandates. Only a cooperation- and dialogue-based approach within the Human Rights Council could help promote and protect human rights. Mandates imposed without the consent of States were bound to fail. Cuba would vote against the draft. The Council adopted draft resolution L.39 by a vote of 21 in favour, 7 against and 19 abstentions. Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in South Sudan In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.40) on the situation of human rights in South Sudan, adopted without a vote, the Council, deeply alarmed by the report of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, noting that some of the human rights violations may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, decides to extend the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, composed of three members, for a period of one year, renewable as authorized by the Human Rights Council, with the following mandate [inter alia]: to monitor and report on the situation of human rights in South Sudan, and to make recommendations to prevent further deterioration of the situation with a view to its improvement; to determine and report the facts and circumstances of, collect and preserve evidence of, and clarify responsibility for alleged gross violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes, including sexual and gender-based violence and ethnic violence, with a view to ending impunity and providing accountability, and to make such information available also to all transitional justice mechanisms, including those to be established pursuant to chapter V of the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan, including the hybrid court for South Sudan, once established in cooperation with the African Union; and to report on the factual basis for transitional justice and reconciliation. The Council requests the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-ninth session in an interactive dialogue, and to present a comprehensive written report, in an interactive dialogue, to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session. United States, introducing draft resolution L.40 on behalf of the core group, particularly welcomed the productive dialogue with the Mission of South Sudan in developing the resolution before the Council. The situation of human rights in South Sudan as reported was deeply alarming. The report of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, presented to the Council last week, had detailed serious human rights violations and abuses and concluded they may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It contained chilling accounts of looting and destruction of homes and villages; rape and other forms of sexual gender-based violence; violence against children; and extra-judicial killings on the basis of ethnicity. The report also underscored that the situation continued to be characterized by impunity. The resolution condemned in the strongest possible terms ongoing human rights violations and abuses in South Sudan. The world must come together to address these atrocities and put an end to the crisis in South Sudan. Through this resolution, the Council condemned violence by all sides, and encouraged domestic and regional efforts to foster a national reconciliation process and work to ensure accountability. In light of the Commission’s report, it was clear that much work remained in carrying out the Commission’s mandate, which this resolution would extend by a year. Through this resolution, the Council welcomed the Government of South Sudan’s stated commitment to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Special Procedures, the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan and regional, sub-regional and international mechanisms on the ground. The core group called upon the Government to honour that commitment and to give the mechanisms unhindered access and engage fully and constructively with them. It also reiterated its call for all parties to the conflict, to allow and facilitate the full, safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel, equipment and supplies free of unnecessary duties and taxes, and the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance to all those in need, in particular to internally displaced persons and refugees. The Government of South Sudan was urged to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the African Union to establish the Hybrid Court immediately. South Sudan, speaking as the concerned country, noted that the Government did appreciate the mutual spirit demonstrated by the United States and the core group in negotiating the extension of the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan. It was time to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the African Union. The international community was urged to support the existing peace processes, including the national dialogue, which had been a vital peace process initiated by the President. Moreover, people to people peace initiatives promoted social cohesion. Finally, the High-Level Revitalization Forum on the Peace Agreement was a process led under the Intergovernmental Authority on Development to prepare the ground for national elections. Those three tracks were complementary processes and had to be firmly supported to achieve lasting peace. South Sudan was born out of a long struggle for peace. South Sudan called upon the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the Troika and the international community not to pursue sanctions but to complement the Government’s efforts toward achieving a sustainable peace. Action on Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.43) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted by a vote of 32 in favour, 5 against and 10 abstentions, the Council strongly condemns the reported widespread, systematic and gross human rights violations and abuses committed in Rakhine State since 25 August 2017…, expresses its deepest concern about the disproportionate response of the military and the security forces and deplores the serious deterioration of the security, human rights and humanitarian situation, [and] the exodus of almost 700,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh; and calls for a full and independent investigation of the reports of systematic human rights violations and abuses committed, as reported by various United Nations bodies, including the Human Rights Council independent international fact-finding mission. The Council decides that the fact-finding mission must ensure that the large and continually increasing amount of evidence of human rights violations and abuses it has collected is fully documented, verified, consolidated and preserved in order for the material to be effectively shared, accessed and used by credible justice mechanisms, and requests the Secretary-General to allocate the resources necessary for this to be done; and also decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for a further period of one year, requests the Special Rapporteur to present an oral progress report to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-eighth session and to submit a report to the Third Committee at the seventy-third session of the General Assembly and to the Council at its fortieth session. The results of the vote were as follows: In favour (32): Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States. Against (5): Burundi, China, Cuba, Philippines and Venezuela. Abstentions (10): Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Japan, Kenya, Mongolia, Nepal, Senegal, South Africa. Bulgaria, introducing the draft on behalf of the European Union, said the Special Session called by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on the situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities last December had been a sign of the indignation of the international community toward the actions of the Myanmar military against the Rohingya in Rakhine state. The draft resolution voiced its condemnation of the abuses taking place in Myanmar. Human rights mechanisms established by the Council played a real difference on the ground and States should cooperate with mandates. The draft called on Myanmar to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur. Adoption of the draft resolution by consensus would send a strong signal of support to the Rohingya community. Australia, in a general comment, reiterated its deep concern about events in Rakhine state, including reports of systematic and widespread violations by the army and vigilantes and the clashes in northern Myanmar. It reiterated its call for an independent fact-finding mission, and called upon Myanmar to grant it unhindered access to all affected areas. All perpetrators of violence and crimes must be held accountable. Displaced persons must be allowed to return in a safe, dignified and voluntary manner in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights. It encouraged Myanmar to implement fully the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Myanmar. Implementation would be a long-term process. It welcomed the Government of Myanmar’s engagement within the Bali Process on people smuggling, trafficking in persons, and transnational crimes, and stood ready to continue to support the country’s democratic transition and its peace and national reconciliation at this difficult time. Myanmar, speaking as the concerned country, said that in its long march to a democratic society, it had faced daunting challenges in peace, national reconciliation and development. Maintenance of the rule of law and providing security for all in Rakhine state and the humanitarian situation there, were particular concerns for present-day Myanmar. As repatriation was an immediate step, the Government had carried out necessary preparations for reception. Regarding repatriation, the Government was ready to receive the list of people at any time. A Memorandum of Understanding between Myanmar and the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for their role in development and repatriation was in the making. While Myanmar did not abdicate its responsibility, the focus should be on the way forward for finding a sustainable solution for the future. At this juncture, the world should be concentrating its efforts to help Myanmar with humanitarian assistance and capacity building to alleviate and end the suffering of internally and externally displaced populations. The draft resolution, in PP7 mentioned “ethnic cleansing.” Diplomatic corps and United Nations agencies had already witnessed that most of the Muslim population and their villages remained intact and they were assuming their daily livelihoods as before. If ethnic cleansing was happening, why had many chosen to continue to reside there? Furthermore, PP12 expressed ongoing intimidation and violence. There was no basis for this allegation. Representatives of diplomatic corps, all United Nations agencies and journalists had been to the Maungtaw area numerous times in January and February 2018 and had witnessed the active resumption of normal livelihoods. Operational paragraph 7 was holding the military and security forces accountable for the security, human rights and humanitarian situation in Maungtaw areas in Rakhine State. Myanmar noted that threats, reprisals, instigations, false hopes, forced recruitments and slaughtering the dozens of Hindus by ARSA had played a critical role in the abrupt change of the daily livelihoods of all people. Immediate and primary causes and effects should be analyzed more closely in a balanced and forward-looking manner. Operational paragraph 9 was factually flawed as there was no curfew order in the whole of Rakhine state. The usage of “no man’s land” in OP11 was incorrect, while with regard to OP13, Myanmar had never rejected the allegations. Operational paragraph 17 related to the collection of evidence of human rights violations and abuses, the credibility of which was crucial. Operational paragraph 23 on land confiscations was unreasonable, and OP8 was most intrusive. The situation in Myanmar was linked to the authority of the Security Council and thereon, to the International Criminal Court. There must be concrete evidence and legal determination to what constituted a crime related to violations and abuses of international human rights law. The notion of this paragraph was a threat and a direct challenge to the State’s sovereignty. Although Myanmar saw some paragraphs acknowledging and welcoming the efforts made by the Government of Myanmar, the aforementioned factually-flawed, intrusive, sovereignty-infringing paragraphs had surpassed these. Against this background, Myanmar categorically rejected the draft resolution. China, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, was concerned about the situation in Myanmar and condemned the escalation of violence. The situation was now calmer and Myanmar and Bangladesh had been continuing their talks, so the international community should lend its support to the dialogue. China always believed in dialogue and respect of sovereignty and did not believe that pressure could result in some progress. Action taken by the Council had to focus toward the continuation of the dialogue between Myanmar and Bangladesh. The draft resolution which was put forward did not reflect the progress made by Myanmar in bilateral efforts and was only putting pressure and conflicting elements on the concerned country. China had participated in the resolution of the conflict and had contributed toward a peaceful solution, but the authors of the draft resolution had not taken that into account. The draft resolution did not create conducive conditions to dialogue, it did not reflect the interests of parties concerned and it would not alleviate the suffering across the region. China called for a vote on the draft resolution, and said it would vote against it. Japan, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it had been actively engaged in informal consultations to achieve a balanced text, however, Japan would abstain from voting. The safe return of the displaced was crucial and the involvement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was essential so the decision of Myanmar to cooperate with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was important. Bangladesh was praised for its generosity in hosting the displaced population and the international community needed to provide appropriate assistance. The Government of Myanmar was urged to implement the recommendations of Kofi Annan’s Advisory Commission. Japan was providing humanitarian and development assistance to Myanmar, including to Rakhine state, and the international community was urged to do the same. Philippines, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it had been following developments of a complex inter-communal issue in northern Rakhine state, including the positive developments in Myanmar. Concern was raised about the humanitarian situation. All acts of violence were condemned. The provision of humanitarian assistance was supported and the international community was urged to further assist Myanmar and its neighbour Bangladesh. Philippines did not support the international fact-finding mission as it rested on the wrong assumption that domestic investigative processes were not independent and credible. For that reason, the Philippines would vote no. The Council then adopted the draft resolution L43, by a vote of 32 in favour, 5 against and 10 abstentions. Explanation of the Vote After the Vote After the Conclusion of Taking Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on Human Rights Situations that Require the Council’s Attention United States, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said it remained a leader in the fight against impunity for international crimes. The International Criminal Court could play a critical role by exercising its power judiciously and within the parameters of international law. The United States reiterated its serious and fundamental concern with the Court’s Prosecutor’s decision to seek an investigation into allegations against United States personnel in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan. Egypt, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, referring to the resolution on South Sudan, said it took great care to participate during the consultation process and to ensure human rights objectives were not politicized. Concerns remained over certain paragraphs in the draft, namely operative paragraph 15. Egypt broke consensus on operative paragraphs 15 and 16(b) of the draft. Turning to the text on Myanmar, Egypt said it was closely following the situation in Rakhine state. Egypt did not support dealing with human rights issues through resolutions not approved by the country concerned. Egypt voted for the draft but voiced reservations over operative paragraph 8. Kyrgyzstan, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said it had not ratified the Rome Statute and therefore disassociated itself from the paragraph relating to this, in the resolution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22895&LangID=E (c) 2018 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner

Asks Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures to Present a Set of Elements to be Considered in the Preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures The Human Rights Council this morning adopted 10 resolutions, including texts requesting the convening of a high-level panel discussion on genocide; and a study on the role of capacity building in the promotion of human rights. The Council also requested the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures to present in his next report a set of elements to be considered as appropriate in the preparation of a draft United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures. On the issue of genocide, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was requested to organize at the thirty-ninth session of the Human Rights Council a high-level panel discussion to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Council also requested the Secretary-General to prepare a follow-up report based on information provided by States on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution. In a text on cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted by a vote of 28 in favour, 1 against and 17 abstentions, States were called upon to uphold multilateralism and the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee was requested to conduct a study on the role of technical assistance and capacity building in fostering mutually beneficial cooperation in promoting and protecting human rights. By the terms of a text on unilateral coercive measures, adopted by a vote of 28 in favour, 15 against and 3 abstentions, the Special Rapporteur on the matter was requested to present to the Council in his next report a set of elements to be considered as appropriate in the preparation of a draft United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The Council decided that its next annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities would be held at its fortieth session with a focus on article 26 of the Convention on habilitation and rehabilitation. The Council requested the High Commissioner to prepare its annual study on the rights of persons with disabilities on article 26 of the Convention. The Council also decided to incorporate into its programme of work a thematic panel discussion with regard to promoting human rights through sport and the Olympic ideal, to be held once every four years at its session preceding the Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games. In a text on torture, States were urged to adopt, implement and comply fully with legal and procedural safeguards against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and ensure that these safeguards were not compromised by any form or practice of corruption. The Council decided to continue its consideration of the question of the rights of the child in accordance with its programme of work and relevant resolutions, and to focus its next annual full-day meeting on the theme “Empowering children with disabilities for the enjoyment of their human rights, including through inclusive education”. Turning to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Council decided to organize two one-day intersessional meetings for dialogue and cooperation on human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In another text, the Council decided to invite the President of the Economic and Social Council, commencing in 2018, to brief it on an annual basis on the discussions of the high-level political forum, including on gaps, challenges and progress in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. On terrorism, the Council called upon States to ensure that measures to counter terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism complied with international law. States were also urged not to resort to profiling based on stereotypes founded on ethnic, racial or religious grounds or any other ground of discrimination prohibited by international law. Speaking in introduction of draft texts were the delegations of Greece, Denmark, Bulgaria (on behalf of the European Union), Uruguay, Venezuela (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Mexico, China, Denmark (on behalf of a group of countries), Chile, South Africa, Armenia, and Egypt. United States, Belgium, Slovakia (on behalf of the European Union), Venezuela, Egypt, Cuba, Germany, Pakistan, South Africa, Chile, Panama, Australia, Rwanda, and Saudi Arabia spoke in general comments. Speaking in an explanation of the vote before or after the vote were United States, Slovakia (on behalf of the European Union), Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Mongolia, Japan, Switzerland, Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan. At 1 p.m., the Council will continue taking action on resolutions and decisions before closing its thirty-seventh session. Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development Action on Resolution on Promoting Human Rights through Sport and the Olympic Ideal In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.31) on promoting human rights through sport and the Olympic ideal, adopted without a vote, the Council encourages States to promote sport as a means to combat all forms of discrimination; and decides to incorporate into its programme of work a thematic panel discussion with regard to promoting human rights through sport and the Olympic ideal, to be held once every four years at the session of the Human Rights Council preceding the Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, and also decides that the discussions will be fully accessible to persons with disabilities. The Council also decides that the first such panel discussion will be organized at its forty-fourth session, ahead of the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo. Greece, introducing draft resolution L.31 on behalf of sponsors Brazil, China, Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Japan, Lebanon, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Russia and Greece, presented the text which was the result of two rounds of informal negotiations. The resolution took into account the work accomplished thus fur with regard to sport and the Olympic idea and had the ambition to deepen the scope of resolution 31/23. L.31 brought in new elements such as women empowerment and gender equality, persons with disabilities, volunteer movements, and the participation of teams of refugees. The resolution called for the Council to incorporate into its programme of work a thematic panel discussion with regard to promoting human rights through sport and the Olympic ideal. United States, speaking in a general comment, was pleased to support the draft resolution. The United States had been long supporting sport activities in the promotion of sport and international labour standards and would continue to work to integrate human rights in international labour standards. The Council adopted the draft resolution without a vote. Action on Resolution on the Negative Impact of Corruption on the Right to be Free from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.32) on the negative impact of corruption on the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence the acts of corruption as required in the United Nations Convention against Corruption and as required in other relevant regional anti-corruption treaties to which they are a party; and urges States to adopt, implement and comply fully with legal and procedural safeguards against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and ensure that these safeguards are not compromised by any form or practice of corruption. The Council underlines that one key aspect of prevention measures against corruption is to address the needs of those in vulnerable situations and persons belonging to marginalized groups, who may be the first persons negatively impacted by corruption and may consequently be in increased risk of being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Denmark, introducing draft resolution L.32, said it had a long tradition of being a main sponsor of resolutions on torture in both the Council and the General Assembly. The basis for the draft resolution was the role that the rule of law and good governance played in torture prevention. The text identified areas where corruption had a particularly negative impact on the fight against torture. Measures to combat torture and corruption could be mutually reinforcing, including in the training of law enforcement personnel, judges and other public officials. Belgium, speaking in a general comment, was strongly committed to fight against torture and other forms of degrading treatment. Belgium welcomed the fact that the resolution focused on the links between corruption and torture, two illegal practices tightly intertwined. The importance of independent law enforcement mechanisms was emphasized in the text and the process of drafting the resolution was highly transparent. Slovakia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, reiterated that this was another step in the fight against torture. Members States of the European Union were proud to join the consensus in adopting this draft resolution. Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, considered that L.32 sought to bring a new substantive concept to this area. However, this issue should be brought up at the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime, not the Council and therefore Venezuela could not support it. Egypt, speaking in a general comment, welcomed draft resolution L.32 and announced its sponsorship of the text as part of Egypt’s policy to combat corruption and torture. The Council adopted the draft resolution without a vote. Action on Resolution on the Rights of the Child: Protection of the Rights of the Child in Humanitarian Situations In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.33) on the rights of the child: protection of the rights of the child in humanitarian situations, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to contribute to the work of the High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development on the follow-up of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development… in particular by providing comprehensive inputs from a child’s rights perspective, to the yearly thematic reviews of progress at the Forum. The Council decides to continue its consideration of the question of the rights of the child in accordance with its programme of work and its resolutions 7/29 of 28 March 2008 and 19/37 of 23 March 2012, and to focus its next annual full-day meeting on the theme “Empowering children with disabilities for the enjoyment of their human rights, including through inclusive education”, and requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report on that theme, in close cooperation with all relevant stakeholders.., and to present it to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session, with a view to providing information for the annual day of discussion on the rights of the child. Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union to introduce L.33 on the protection of the rights of the child, said that when crises struck, children were the first to suffer. They suffered unspeakable physical and psychological damage. One out of three suffered such damage while 50 million had been uprooted from their homes. The European Union thanked all delegations for their constructive engagement. The text presented would continue to improve the protection of children in the humanitarian context. The European Union proposed oral revisions to PP11, inserting a phrase on “the best interest of the child;” OP14 inserting “in consultation with children;” and OP22 inserting “strongly condemns all attacks directed against civilian objects.” The oral revisions reflected the widest possible consensus, and it was hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted as orally revised, in consensus. Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, said this was a topic of particular urgency, and invited States to take all measures to protect children in disasters, when they were more vulnerable to violence, abuse and exploitation. This text was in line with international law and proposals by humanitarian actors, with the aim to provide health care, education, reunification, identification as well as other rights to children, always upholding the best interest of the child. It highlighted the discussion today, which had concluded that the Convention of the Rights of the Child was applicable in all situations. The consultation process of this draft had been open and transparent. The text presented was balanced, having taken into account the consensus expressed by all countries. Uruguay invited all States to co-sponsor this draft resolution by consensus. United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, joined the consensus on the draft resolution to underscore the priority it placed on domestic and international efforts to promote and protect the wellbeing of children. However, it dissociated itself from two paragraphs referring to international legal obligations on climate and federalism. The United States reiterated the understanding expressed in its position on the New Declaration and thus dissociated itself from preambular paragraph 11. It also dissociated itself from the language regarding the policies, systems and procedures applicable to migrant children. The United States made sure that they were treated in a safe and dignified manner, and its current practices with respect to children were consistent with its international commitments. It noted that the Council’s resolutions did not oblige States to join human rights or other international instruments or any obligations under them. The Council then adopted the draft resolution as orally revised without a vote. Action on Resolution on Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.34) on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, adopted by a vote of 28 in favour, 15 against and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights to identify and propose concrete measures to ensure the removal of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights of victims, and to focus on the resources and compensation necessary to promote accountability and reparations for victims in his next report to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly; and also, taking into account the views of Member States, to present to the Human Rights Council in his next report, a set of elements to be considered as appropriate in the preparation of a Draft United Nations Declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The Council requests the High Commissioner, in discharging his functions relating to the promotion, realization and protection of the right to development and bearing in mind the continuing impact of unilateral coercive measures on the population of developing countries, to give priority to the present resolution in his annual report. The results of the vote were as follows: In favour (28): Angola, Burundi, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela. Against (15): Australia, Belgium, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States. Abstentions (3): Afghanistan, Brazil, Mexico. Venezuela, introducing draft resolution L.34 on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said it also enjoyed co-sponsorship of Jordan on behalf of the Arab Group and Togo, on behalf of the African Group. At the Margarita summit, States had expressed their dissatisfaction with unilateral coercive measures and announced their decision to require the annulment of such measures. The historic position of the Non-Aligned Movement was to condemn unilateral coercive measures, as was done in the declaration of New York. New elements had been incorporated in this draft resolution to update the resolution 34/30 on the same topic. The Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures was required to report to the Council on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights and to prepare elements to draft a declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner was required to give priority in its report to the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. Cuba, speaking in a general comment, said that draft resolution L.34 was an expression of genuine will to end the negative practice of unilateral coercive measures. Countries expressing opposition to this draft resolution were the very same countries imposing unilateral coercive measures. Those countries sought to bring double standards to the Council. Cuban people knew too well the consequences and impact of unilateral coercive measures, having been subjected to the economic and trade blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States. Slovakia, speaking on behalf of the European Union Member States that are Members of the Human Rights Council in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reiterated that the introduction and implementation of restrictive measures must always be undertaken in accordance with international law. Such measures must respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular due process and the right to an effective remedy. The measures imposed must always be proportionate to their objective. Sanctions were one of the European Union’s tools to promote the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy: peace, democracy, and respect for the rule of law, human rights and international law. They were always part of a comprehensive policy approach involving political dialogue and complementary efforts. The European Union’s restrictive measures were not punitive in nature but sought to bring about a change in the policy or conduct of those targeted. Measures were therefore always targeted at such policies or activities, the means to conduct them and those responsible for them. Despite the European Union’s numerous concerns about the Council’s initiatives on unilateral coercive measures and possible biased political agendas that might be pursued, including by the Special Rapporteur, the European Union had always actively participated both in the informal consultation on the resolution and in the previously Council-mandated panel and workshops. Nonetheless, bearing in mind the nature and content of this draft resolution, which dwelled essentially on relations between States instead of on concrete human rights of individuals, the European Union recalled its position that it considered that the Human Rights Council was not the appropriate forum to address this issue. Finally, the European Union could not support any of the new elements introduced in this resolution. Its long-standing position that sanctions were not intrinsically unlawful in nature prevented them from supporting the premise that their imposition must give rise to accountability or reparations. Furthermore, it did not see the need for the elaboration of a draft United Nations declaration on the issue, nor for the High Commissioner to give priority to the present resolution in his annual report, as it was the European Union’s strong belief that there was sufficient work being done so far in the United Nations system. For the above mentioned reasons, the European Union could not support the draft resolution and called for a vote. The European Union Member States that were members of the Human Rights Council would vote against the resolution. Brazil, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, condemned unilateral coercive measures as they were contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, and the United Nations Charter. Brazil stressed their potential negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights. Brazil was, nevertheless, concerned about some new elements in the draft resolution, such as the possible United Nations declaration on the negative effects of unilateral coercive measures, which would require more time for negotiations due to the complexities of the issue. The situation in Venezuela had created a dilemma with regard to Brazil’s traditional position on the matter. In Venezuela threats against human rights defenders were the result of the policies administered by the Venezuelan Government itself, such as using access to food to influence the popular will. Brazil thus decided to abstain on the draft resolution. Mexico, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reminded that it traditionally supported the initiative when the use of unilateral coercive measures was in contravention of the United Nations Charter and contrary to international law. But it had concerns regarding the development of the text, namely closed negotiations and the inclusion of a new paragraph that did not enjoy the support of the membership. Mexico disagreed with paragraph 24, which requested the Special Rapporteur to submit a proposal of elements for the elaboration of a new United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. It was necessary to maintain the spirit of cooperation in the United Nations and avoid duplication of work. The proposal for coming up with a declaration on the issue would not contribute to international standards on the matter. Mexico would thus abstain from voting on the draft resolution. United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, once again categorically rejected the premise that underlined the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures. The imposition of targeted sanctions did not violate human rights. In fact, targeted sanctions could be a powerful tool to promote human rights accountability for those who violated or abused human rights. The resolution before the Council today blatantly mischaracterized international law and called into question legitimate practices undertaken by many United Nations Member States. Sanctions, whether unilateral or multilateral, could be a successful means of achieving foreign policy objectives. Financial sanctions, bans on technology and arms transfers, and travel restrictions helped impede the ability of designated persons from engaging in actions that threatened international peace and security. In cases where the United States had applied sanctions, the measures had been implemented with specific objectives in mind, including as a means to promote the rule of law or democratic systems, to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, or to encourage improved resource governance. The United States believed that sanctions could be an appropriate, effective, and legitimate alternative to the use of force and that the United States sanctions were consistent with international law and in line with the United Nations Charter. For these reasons, the United States would vote “no” on the resolution and urged all delegations to vote against it. Australia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said sanctions had played a critical role over the years in fighting oppression and promoting freedoms, including by ending apartheid. Sanctions in line with international obligations were directed at advancing accountability. Australia did not support this resolution and would vote no. The Council then adopted the draft resolution with a vote of 28 votes in favour, 15 against and 3 abstentions. Action on Resolution on the Equality and Non-Discrimination of Persons with Disabilities and the Right of Persons with Disabilities to Access to Justice (Articles 5 and 13 of the CRPD) In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.35) on the equality and non-discrimination of persons with disabilities and the right of persons with disabilities to access to justice (articles 5 and 13 of the CRPD), adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decides that its next annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities will be held at its fortieth session and that it will focus on article 26 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, on habilitation and rehabilitation and will have international sign interpretation and captioning; also decides that an interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities will be held at its forty-third session, and that the debate will focus on article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on awareness raising, and will have international sign interpretation and captioning. The Council requests the High Commissioner to prepare its annual study on the rights of persons with disabilities on article 26 of the Convention, and to prepare its subsequent study with a focus on article 8 of the Convention, in consultation with States and other relevant stakeholders… including organizations of persons with disabilities… requiring contributions to be submitted in an accessible format, and requests that such stakeholder contributions, and the study and an easy-to-read-version of it, be made available on the website of the Office, in an accessible format, prior to the fortieth session of the Human Rights Council. The Council encourages the task force of the Human Rights Council on secretariat services and accessibility for persons with disabilities to report orally to the Council on its work and on the progress made on the implementation of its accessibility plan. Mexico, introducing draft resolution L.35, stressed that equality and non-discrimination, and the right to access to justice, were essential for the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, 11 years after the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, there were persistent and significant challenges for persons with disabilities in accessing justice on an equal footing with other persons, due to the lack of reasonable accommodation and procedural adjustments. The draft resolution, thus, proposed ways in which States could fully comply with their obligations under the Convention. It paid particular attention to multiple and cross-cutting forms of discrimination faced by women and girls with disabilities. Egypt, in a general comment, underlined the need for persons with disabilities to fully enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to have full access to justice. The Egyptian Constitution guaranteed economic, social, cultural, educational and sports rights of persons with disabilities. Egypt had declared 2019 as the year of disability and it would continue its efforts to empower persons with disabilities in all areas of life. It called on all countries to make similar efforts. Hungary, speaking in a general comment, said it was committed to the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities and had co-sponsored the resolution. However, the draft resolution was not consistent with international commitments in the area of sexual and reproductive rights and the 2030 Agenda. The term sexual and reproductive had not been universally defined and Hungary wished to express its reservation toward a number of paragraphs. The Council adopted the draft resolution, as orally revised, without the vote. Action on Resolution on Promoting Mutually Beneficial Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.36) on promoting mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted by a vote of 28 in favour, 1 against and 17 abstentions, the Council calls upon all States to uphold multilateralism and to work together to promote mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human rights; and requests the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to conduct a study on the role of technical assistance and capacity-building in fostering mutually beneficial cooperation in promoting and protecting human rights, and to submit a report thereon to the Human Rights Council before its forty-third session. The results of the vote were as follows: In favour (28): Angola, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Togo, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela. Against (1): United States. Abstentions (17): Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Peru, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom. China, introducing L.36, said the resolution was of mutual benefit for the lofty goals for all peoples and Member States of the United Nations. It was in line with all documents, including the Vienna Declaration and Programme for Action, which called for strong cooperation and dialogue among States to the promotion and protection of human rights. All peoples lived on the same Earth and faced common challenges. China had co-sponsored this resolution for mutually beneficial cooperation in promoting and protecting human rights. It strongly believed that the Human Rights Council should be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity for greater cooperation, capacity building, and technical assistance, in order to build a new type of international relations, which reflected the times. The contributions of China and other countries to global human rights governance were in this direction. China had, over the past few weeks, done its utmost to consult and integrate modifications to the draft resolution. It thanked all parties who had demonstrated a cooperative attitude. The oral amendments to this effect would be distributed by the Council. China hoped that this draft resolution would be adopted by consensus, and would regret if any country would oppose it just because it was put forth by China. China hoped countries would refrain from the “zero-sum” game and hoped that all Member States would participate in consensus. Pakistan, in a general comment, said the draft resolution advocated the values of cooperation and constructive engagement in the promotion of human rights. Not only did it take into account the importance of technical cooperation but also the principles of universality, impartiality, and non-selectivity, based on dialogue and political independence. Earnest implementation of such principles could lead to the valuable tangible goals that the United Nations had set themselves. Pakistan would therefore support the resolution. United States, in a general comment, said it was clear that China was attempting through this resolution to weaken the United Nations human rights system and the norms underpinning it. The “feel good” language about “mutually beneficial cooperation” was intended to benefit autocratic States at the expense of people whose human rights and fundamental freedoms all were obligated, as States, to respect. For these reasons, the United States was calling for a vote and would vote against this resolution, and encouraged all other countries not to support this resolution. Cuba, in a general comment, said that it understood the benefits of mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of human rights as based on the principles of equality, non-politicization and non-selectivity. It would help expand the common ground of understanding and it would reinforce cooperation through technical assistance and capacity building. It would help build a future community in which respect for all human rights was shared by all human beings. South Africa, in a general comment, supported the draft resolution as it contained important principles it believed in and as it encouraged an approach key to the Council’s mandate to operate in a cooperative manner. The draft resolution affirmed issues of importance to South Africa in a context where resolutions of crucial importance reflected the aspirations of ordinary people ranging from access to medicines, the right to food, and the right to peace. They could not quarrel with a resolution which spoke about key issues of importance to the majority of the poor globally. That happened too often in the Council on the needs of the vulnerable, yet those were all important issues as everyone believed in the indivisibility of all human rights. The notion of cooperation being mutually beneficial also importantly denoted fundamental and universally agreed principles being upheld and respected among partners engaging in cooperation and was enshrined in the founding mandate of the Council. All programmes of cooperation, capacity building and technical assistance should fundamentally further the realization of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, recognized the important role played by international cooperation in the area of human rights, including the right to development. Genuine dialogue, guided by the principles of objectivity, respect for national sovereignty and non-politicization as well as non-interference in the area of human rights, had to be carried out in order to strengthen constructive elements of technical assistance and capacity building. China was thanked for its sponsorship and constructive role and flexibility demonstrated during the drafting process. Egypt, speaking in a general comment, noted that article 1 of the United Nations Charter emphasized the importance of international cooperation in the area of human rights. Such cooperation had to be based on reciprocity and mutual respect, in the same vein that L.36 promoted international cooperation. The study requested by L.36 served to allow for informed technical assistance and capacity building efforts. Australia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it had negotiated in good faith with drafters of L.36, but regretted that none of their concerns had been addressed. L.36 lacked balance and it focused overly on the relations between States instead of the rights of individuals, as emphasized in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Words and concepts such as mutually beneficial cooperation and community of shared future should not be used as they had not been defined and were vague and ambiguous. The call for technical assistance and capacity building contained in the text was unappropriated. While technical assistance and capacity building were vital, those instruments were used to promote human rights of individuals, but the draft resolution did not emphasize the importance of transparency and monitoring. The important role of other stakeholders such as national human rights institutions were not addressed. Finally, there was a concern that L.36 might seek to reform the Council and its mandate. Mexico, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, recognized the efforts of China to hold open negotiations and the very hard work of the Chinese delegation. China had addressed many of the concerns of Mexico, such as recognition that human rights were not only a cause. However, significant omissions remained, notably with respect to the work of human rights defenders and civil society. Those were notable omissions and the text contained unclear concepts, such as the call to build a community for a shared future. However, Mexico attached importance to international cooperation and would thus vote in favour of the draft resolution. Slovakia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, believed that it was crucially important that all Council initiatives enhanced all human rights. Initiatives needed to demonstrate clearly that they were in the service of promoting human rights and preventing human rights violations. International cooperation was one way to achieve that objective. Benefits went to individual human rights holders. The draft resolution did not go far enough and it used concepts that were at odds with those set out in the United Nations Charter and other key agreements. There was no clear recognition that human rights violations should be addressed even when there was no cooperation with concerned countries. The European Union could thus not support the draft resolution. Mongolia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the enjoyment of human rights as the basis for democratic and open societies. It was committed to work toward the full implementation of all rights, civil and political, economic, social and cultural, and the right to development. Any cooperation in the field of human rights was beneficial if it enhanced human rights without any compromise. Such cooperation would be beneficial only if it expanded the existing human rights system, and thus Mongolia would support the draft resolution. Japan, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, appreciated the efforts by China for full cooperation and constructive engagement on the draft resolution. Japan was of the opinion that a couple of terms in the oral revisions, including “building a community” and “mutually beneficial cooperation” were not widely used in international cooperation. They were not suitable for a human rights resolution as they were not widely accepted definitions. The individual was the central subject for human rights. Japan had considered it appropriate to delete OP5 which requested the High Commissioner to conduct a study and submit a report on these two terms, and had submitted a proposal to this effect. The proposal however had not been reflected in the oral revision. Having said that, Japan would support further efforts on this topic, but would abstain from the draft resolution as orally revised. Switzerland, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, appreciated the efforts made by China to conduct open consultations on the draft resolution. Some considerations had been taken into account, however central concerns of Switzerland had not been addressed. In particular, Switzerland opposed the vague and ambiguous language which weakened the fundamental principles of human rights. This language would jeopardize the significant progress made, in particular in commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Switzerland appreciated constructive cooperation internationally as a means to the promotion and protection of human rights. At the same time, it recalled that human rights mandates had to act where human rights violations were present and to prevent and promptly intervene in crises. Human rights protection contributed to peace stability in all countries. The United Nations mechanisms were carrying out their mandates in conformity with international law. It highlighted the crucial participation of civil society in the human rights mechanisms, without being subject to reprisals. As a result, Switzerland would abstain from the draft resolution. Republic of Korea, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, appreciated the efforts of China to accommodate different views. However, it was concerned that the term “mutually beneficial cooperation” was not understood, especially in the area of the promotion of human rights, so the Republic of Korea would abstain from this draft resolution. The Council then adopted the draft resolution by a vote of 28 in favour, one against and 17 abstentions. Action on Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.37) on the promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted without a vote, the Council decides to organize two one-day intersessional meetings for dialogue and cooperation on human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; decides that the focus of each of the above-mentioned meetings will reflect the stated themes of the 2019 and 2020 high-level political forums on sustainable development; and further decides that the meetings should be held in advance of the 2019 and 2020 high-level political forums respectively. The Council requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize the two meetings… and to provide… all the services and facilities necessary to make the discussions fully accessible to persons with disabilities; also requests the President of the Human Rights Council to appoint for each meeting, on the basis of regional rotation, and in consultation with regional groups, a chairperson of the meeting from candidates nominated by members and observers of the Council; the chair, together with the Office of the High Commissioner, shall be responsible for the preparation of summary reports of the discussions of the meetings, to be made available to all its participants, and for their presentation to the Council at its fortieth and forty-third sessions, respectively; and decides that the summary reports of the discussions of the two meetings should be made available to the high-level political forum on sustainable development. Denmark and Chile, introducing draft resolution L.37 on behalf of a broad cross-regional core group, were pleased to present the draft resolution following three rounds of informal consultations, bilateral meetings and over 18 months of dialogue with States, United Nations organizations and civil society. The draft aimed to move beyond normative debates and provide a simple, practical and forward-looking framework for helping States leverage the interrelated and mutually reinforcing nature of human rights and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. The draft resolution proposed the organization of two one-day intersessional meetings for dialogue on human rights and the 2030 Agenda. All delegations would benefit from such a key space for dialogue and practical exchange. The draft also recognized the central role of the high level political forum in providing political leadership and recommendations for sustainable development. United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, joined consensus on the draft resolution, while noting its longstanding and well-known concerns regarding the “right to development,” and concerns about the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Council then adopted the draft resolution without a vote. Action on Resolution on the Need for an Integrated Approach to the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for the Full Realization of Human Rights, Focusing on All Means of Implementation In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.42) on the need for an integrated approach to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for the full realization of human rights, focusing on all means of implementation, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council reaffirms the central role of the high-level political forum on sustainable development, which meets under the auspices of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council and has a mandate to oversee a network of processes for the follow-up to and review of the 2030 Agenda at the global level; and decides to invite the President of the Economic and Social Council, commencing in 2018, to brief, on an annual basis, the Human Rights Council, during one of its regular sessions, on the discussions of the high-level political forum, including on gaps, challenges and progress in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, focusing on the means of implementation taken together as an integrated package. South Africa, introducing draft resolution L.42 on behalf of the core group, presented oral amendments, which were the product of Member States’ negotiations. South Africa reminded that when Member States had adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, it was with the understanding that development was a continuum, that countries were not at the same levels of development, and above all, that development was about human rights. The text thus had a solid human rights foundation as inherently built into the 2030 Agenda. The 2030 Agenda gave content to the right to development in a manner that moved the international community forward and it was a critical aspect of the draft resolution. States had the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national development policies that were aimed at the constant improvement of the wellbeing of the entire population and of all individuals. South Africa noted that there was a trend in the Council of cherry-picking the goals and re-interpreting the 2030 Agenda in a manner that fragmented them, while at the same time ignoring and undermining the means of implementation completely. The draft resolution reaffirmed the central role of the high-level political forum under the auspices of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council with a central role in overseeing follow-up and review at the global level and in that regarded invited the President of the Economic and Social Council to annually brief the Human Rights Council on the discussions of the high-level political forum, including on gaps, challenges and progress in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. That briefing would fundamentally assist the Human Rights Council in establishing a baseline with regard to what needed to be done and locating itself appropriately in how best it could complement processes on the Sustainable Development Goals, and how to deploy technical assistance and capacity building. Slovakia, speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, said it joined consensus on this issue. The 2030 Agenda reaffirmed that peace, access to justice, and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions were vital to sustainable development. It strived to ensure that no one was left behind. In this regard, the work of the Human Rights Council was deeply relevant to the implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals Agenda. Likewise, the implementation of the Agenda in other fora was important for the Council. All initiatives of the Council had to ensure the promotion and protection of all human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In this regard, the European Union wished for stronger consensus on the draft resolution today. It was crucial to have a human rights-based approach to the 2030 Agenda. This approach had not been adequately reflected in the text of the draft resolution. The European Union thanked the sponsors of the resolution for having conducted an open process and for their efforts to try to reflect all the various views. The sponsors had taken these views seriously and tried to accommodate all in the draft resolution. Therefore, the European Union found itself in the position to be in consensus with this draft resolution. United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked South Africa, Pakistan and the core group, all of whom had enabled the United States to join consensus on this resolution and to underscore the priority that the United States placed on the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of sustainable development. The United States concerns about the right to development, cited in PP4, were well-known, and would be addressed under item 3. The United States recognized that the 2030 Agenda could help countries work toward global peace and prosperity, and that each country had its own development priorities and must work toward implementation in accordance with its own national policies and priorities. However, this single element should not be elevated above others, particularly in a Human Rights Council resolution. Similarly, it was good that the resolution stressed that the Sustainable Development Goals were “universal, indivisible, and interlinked” but it implied that SDG 17, which addressed the means of implementation, was foremost among them. Therefore, the United States disassociated itself from PP9 and OP4. It did not support such attempts to circumvent the careful balance of elements in the 2030 Agenda. The United States highlighted that paragraph 58 of the 2030 Agenda stated that the implementation of the Agenda must respect and be without prejudice to the independent mandates of other processes and institutions, including negotiations, and did not prejudge or serve as precedent for decisions and actions under way in other fora. For example, the United States continued to view the World Trade Organization as the appropriate forum for the negotiation of trade issues. The Council then adopted the draft resolution, as orally revised, without a vote. Action on Resolution on the Prevention of Genocide In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.44) on the prevention of genocide, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council requests the Secretary-General to draw up a roster of focal points and networks on the prevention of genocide with updated information from Member States; and also requests the Secretary-General to prepare a follow-up report based on information provided by States on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution… and to submit the report to the Human Rights Council at its forty-first session. The Council requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize at the thirty-ninth session of the Human Rights Council a high-level panel discussion to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to be followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide; and to prepare a summary report on the high-level panel discussion and to submit it to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session. Armenia, introducing draft resolution L.44, said that Armenia had been presenting resolutions on the prevention of genocide since 1998 and such resolutions were usually adopted by consensus. The draft resolution called on States and the United Nations to utilise this important anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which had been adopted in December 1948. The draft took into account ongoing legislative developments and reconfirmed that the fight against impunity was an essential element in the fight against genocide. It also commended the adoption of resolution 69/323 of General Assembly proclaiming the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide. Mobilizing the international community was instrumental in preventing genocide, so Armenia called for the adoption of L.44 by consensus. Slovakia, speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, attached great importance to the draft resolution, which addressed the most serious of international crimes. It was incumbent upon the international community to ensure that the rhetoric of “never again” was matched by convincing action to identify and address warning signs that atrocities may be in the making. That meant assisting the United Nations Secretary-General in his prevention agenda and intensifying the Human Rights Council’s engagement on prevention issues. It meant supporting the mechanisms that were in place to contribute to early warning endeavours, including the Special Advisors of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide and the responsibility to protect, and the framework analysis for atrocity crimes that they had developed. The European Union wished to have a more robust language in the draft resolution on the responsibility to protect, drawing on the agreed language enshrined in the World Summit Outcome Document of 2005. Cuba, in a general comment, regretted that it could not support all paragraphs, noting that the prevention of genocide was a vital topic for the international community. It rejected attempts by certain countries to include items that did not enjoy the support of the international community. Cuba rejected an attempt to bring the concept of the responsibility to protect before it was clearly agreed on by the General Assembly. That concept could be used as a justification for military intervention against developing countries. The General Assembly should continue discussions on that topic, which had left divergent opinions and important doubts, namely with respect to who decided whether there was a need to intervene under the responsibility to protect, or how and where limits were established? The General Assembly had to remain the centre of those discussions and other bodies should refrain from taking steps in that area. Cuba thus requested that a separate vote be held on two paragraphs of the draft resolution and it would vote against them. Chile, in a general comment, thanked Armenia for presenting the draft resolution. It was deeply concerned about the prevention of genocide and welcomed the focus on this issue on its seventieth anniversary. Every State had the responsibility to prohibit this crime and every incitement to it. Cuba reiterated the importance of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the importance of carrying forward efforts to prevent and punish genocide, and ensure that such atrocious grave crimes were never repeated again. It highlighted the important role of the Human Rights Council and the United Nations Special Advisers of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide and on the responsibility to protect from genocide – including early warning sings. It hoped that the Human Rights Council would unanimously move to adopt the draft resolution in consensus. Panama, in a general comment, said in 2018 the world was commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As co-sponsor of the text, it considered it vital to reiterate the importance of the Convention, as well as new challenges. The world could not deny that genocide was a scourge which had inflicted great loss to the world. It was therefore important to incorporate issues which prevented this scourge. Panama highlighted the importance of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide and the five-point analysis for grave crimes. It encouraged States to support the draft resolution as orally revised. PP22 and OP16 were aimed to assess risks and other crimes. These elements were relevant for the substance of the draft resolution. Germany, in a general comment, supported the texts of PP22 and OP16, which contained agreed language that had been adopted in 2015. Germany and other co-sponsors believed that this resolution should provide a clear source of knowledge available, to ensure prevention. These two paragraphs made references to the importance of such prevention. For these reasons it would vote against the oral revisions of PP22 and OP16. Germany would vote for keeping these two paragraphs, and called on all others to support the text as it was, with the two paragraphs, without oral revisions. Belgium, speaking in a general comment, reaffirmed its full support for draft resolution L.44. Noting the important anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which had been adopted in December 1948, Belgium also supported the work of the Special Adviser for the prevention of genocide and the Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect and the development of a joint analysis framework, highlighting the possibility of early warning development. By supporting PP22 and OP16, the Council could send a strong signal concerning the prevention of genocide. Australia, speaking in a general comment, commended the references made to the Special Adviser for the prevention of genocide and the Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect. It also commended work done to develop a joint analysis framework. A joint analysis framework was crucial in atrocity crime prevention and it had to rely on cooperation with international and national actors. The draft resolution contributed to the current United Nations reform which had been aiming to strengthen the prevention agenda. Venezuela, in a general comment, expressed serious reservations regarding the concept of the responsibility to protect, which sought to give normative nature to the use of the concept currently discussed by the General Assembly. It thus suggested oral amendments to paragraphs in question, and it requested the Council to vote in favour of them. Rwanda, in a general comment, welcomed the adoption of the draft resolution, given that 2018 also marked the seventieth anniversary of the Genocide Convention. As the world approached the twenty-fifth anniversary of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, ending impunity was of vital importance, not only in ensuring justice for the victims of atrocities but in deterring and preventing future serious international crimes. Rwanda continued to support regional and international efforts to prevent serious international crimes and was also a strong supporter of the responsibility to protect. It regretted that two important paragraphs in the draft resolution would be subjected to a vote. It would vote against the proposed deletions. United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, commended the sponsors for conducting a comprehensive bilateral negotiations process. It viewed the proposal to vote against PP22 and OP16 as hostile to the spirit of the draft resolution and contradictory to the important work of genocide prevention. The work of genocide prevention was too important to be politicized. The two paragraphs took note of the new joint analysis framework and highlighted its importance as one of the tools to assess the risk of genocide. The resolution also recommended greater collaboration among Member States, regional organizations, and sub-regional organizations to increase their collaboration on prevention. The framework of analysis was a guideline, one that all States could use as appropriate; it was not imposed on States. Action on PP22 and OP16 The Council then adopted PP22 and OP16 by a vote of 24 in favour, 8 against, and 15 abstentions. Cuba, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said it had requested a vote on the two paragraphs in order to express its rejection of the term responsibility to protect, particularly reference to the Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect. The scope of the application of the term “responsibility to protect” was not appropriate in L.44. Cuba fully supported the work of Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect and noted its importance. Still all States were urged to reflect on whether it was appropriate to invoke the responsibility to protect. Cuba disassociated itself from PP22 and OP16 and the paragraph referring to the Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect. Venezuela, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, disassociated itself from PP22 and OP16. Insisting on the responsibility to protect by those who sought to impose responsibility to protect had a negative impact on L.44 and the attempted adoption by consensus. Kyrgyzstan, in an explanation of the vote after the vote, underlined that genocide was a heinous crime and Kyrgyzstan was a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Although Kyrgyzstan joined in the consensus, it could not support the work of the Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect. The responsibility to protect was not universally accepted and Kyrgyzstan had not ratified the Rome Statute so it wished to disassociate itself from PP22, PP24 and OP16. Pakistan disassociated itself from PP22 and OP16 and wished this to be documented in the minutes. The Council then adopted the draft text as orally revised without a vote. Action on Resolution on Terrorism and Human Rights In a resolution (A/HRC/37/L.50/Rev.1) on terrorism and human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council calls upon States to ensure that any measure taken to counter terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism complies with international law, in particular human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law; and urges States… not to resort to profiling based on stereotypes founded on ethnic, racial or religious grounds or any other ground of discrimination prohibited by international law. The Council requests States to refrain from providing support to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including support in establishing propaganda platforms advocating hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence… and emphasizes in this regard the key importance of the full respect for the right to freedom of opinion and expression as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Council further urges States to adopt rehabilitation and reintegration strategies for returning foreign terrorist fighters, in line with the good practices… and to adopt a comprehensive approach that includes, inter alia the development of national centers for counsel and to prevent the radicalization to violence that can play an important role together with criminal justice responses. Egypt, introducing the draft resolution L.50 on behalf of the core group, said the world had been witnessing an overwhelming and severe tide of atrocities in an endless chain of deplorable incidents. These necessitated that the Human Rights Council shoulder its responsibility and protect peoples from terrorism, and send a clear message especially to the victims, that the Council was united in this fight. In this direction, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia had worked with Mexico on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism. The draft resolution dealt with terrorism from all its angles, while protecting victims from counter-terrorism measures. It aimed to unequivocally condemn all acts and methods of terrorism, and incitement of all its forms and manifestations, as unjustifiable. It expressed grave concern on the detrimental effects thereof. It reaffirmed the primary responsibility of the State in preventing terrorism, as well as denying all forms of support to terrorism, including military, political, logistical and financial. It also urged States to deal with such underlying causes of terrorism as conflicts, oppression, poverty, intolerance, racism and xenophobia. It called upon all States to promote a culture of peace, and religious, ethnic and national tolerance. It required States to refrain from supporting propaganda platforms advocating hatred, that constituted hatred and discrimination, including through the Internet and other media, while emphasizing the right to freedom and expression. Finally, it expressed solidarity with victims of terrorism, acknowledged the importance of their needs, and ensured their access to justice and accountability. It also expressed the importance of maintaining an effective, fair, human, transparent and accountable criminal justice system and incited the international community on the importance of preventing and combatting this phenomenon. The core group had reached out to partners and managed to incorporate the sometimes difficult amendments from delegations, in a matter that did not affect the balance. The core group was dedicated to deliberating on this issue, in coming years, to ensure the implementation of all concerns of all Member States. It called on the Council to adopt L.50 Rev.1 with consensus. Mexico, also introducing draft resolution L.50, noted that without doubt terrorism was one of the greatest threats to societies, principles and values. However, the fight against terrorism should not be used as an excuse to restrict fundamental freedoms. In the search for collective peace and security, the international community should not forget about the primacy of human rights. By deciding to combine in a single text the resolution on the protection of human rights and the fight against terrorism with the resolution on the impact of terrorism on human rights, the delegations of Egypt and Mexico had sought to bridge differences in the Human Rights Council and build unity that would allow Member States to find efficient ways of fighting terrorism, while protecting human rights. The two delegations were aware that the text did not address all concerns and doubts, and that it could be improved. Nevertheless, it represented a legitimate effort to close the gap between two perspectives of the same problem. South Africa, introducing amendment L.63, noted the murder of Solomon Mahlangu who had been fighting against apartheid and had been killed as a terrorist; he would be considered a human rights defender today. Mandela himself was very fortunate to have escaped the death penalty. Numerous politicians had called him a terrorist and asked for him to be murdered. It took a while for him to be removed from the international lists of terrorists after he was released. South Africa was deeply concerned over the loss of lives because of indiscriminate terrorist acts. South Africa supported the underlying sentiments of the draft resolution but noticed substantive omissions to which it disagreed. To prevent what happened to Solomon Mahlangu happening again, the amendment sought to balance the text by confirming that the legitimate struggle for self-determination and liberation, recognized by the United Nations, should not be associated with terrorism. The United Nations Charter and the Covenants all enshrined the right to self-determination. South Africa was concerned that L.50 had not made reference to the grave human rights abuses precipitated by the so-called war on terror. States which were supporting South Africa’s sentiment were called to vote in favour of this amendment L.63 to ensure that safeguards were built within the resolution, in order to prevent freedom fighters being labelled terrorist and to prevent abuses. Mexico, on behalf of co-sponsors, said they did not agree with the comment. Egypt, in a general comment, reiterated that it had a firm position on the rights of peoples to their right to self-determination as an inalienable and indivisible right that was enshrined in the United Nations Charter and many other relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations, including those where Egypt had participated in drafting and adopting these resolutions. No one was incognizant of the fact that Egypt had stood steadfast with peoples yearning for freedom, in particular in Africa. It underlined the movement for freedom of peoples in South Africa against apartheid, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, whose centenary was being celebrated this year. Egypt supported the Palestinian people’s rights to self-determination, considering that this was the pivotal question in the Middle East, in view of all realities in recent history. Egypt said that the draft resolution before the Council was on terrorism. This was an objective and substantive resolution written in generic terms and was not related to a specific geographic area and did not point to a specific terrorist group. It did not deal with the right to self-determination which was enshrined under international law. Nor did it deal with legitimate armed struggle which was also enshrined under international law. The attempt to bring this shade of difference meant there was an attempt to mix up the notion of a legitimate struggle for liberation with the notion of terrorism. This was a matter that was contrary to the reality and set the world back miles. The law and international conventions had provisions. Mexico, during the preparation of the draft resolution, had amalgamated two resolutions that the Council had brought in the past. It had tried to bring into concern the considerations of all delegations. The delegation of South Africa had been present at the consultations during the draft resolution and had proposed two amendments. The core group had studied one of them and applied it in a manner consistent with the draft resolution. Egypt hoped that it would work with South Africa today in order to contain this matter. The States were before an effort to unify the Human Rights Council in order to take a firm and stable position in relation to the relationship between human rights and terrorism, which had led to thousands of victims and the displacement of thousands of people, and the destruction of the wealth of countries. Egypt believed the Member States would work earnestly to achieve consensus on this issue and support the rights of the victims and their families. Egypt would thus vote against the amendments made by South Africa because they countered the substance and the context of the draft resolution. Pakistan, in a general comment, appreciated the work done on the important draft resolution, and supported the amendment presented by South Africa as it enriched the text. Pakistan strongly condemned terrorism and it took part in all international efforts to fight terrorism. But it noted that the international community needed to be careful that liberation movements were not labelled as terrorist movements. It urged Member States of the Council to support the proposed amendment. Saudi Arabia, in a general comment, called on everyone to vote against the amendment proposed by South Africa. It reminded that the two draft resolutions were agreed in most opinions. However, the objective was one and the same. The merger of the two resolutions would reconcile the views of most parties. Saudi Arabia thanked Mexico for its efforts in that endeavour and called on all to adopt the draft resolution as originally presented. Slovakia, in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, fully supported the merger of the two previous resolutions related to terrorism – one sponsored by Mexico and the other sponsored by Egypt. While the draft text was a compromise which could be further improved, the European Union saw it as an important step forward. Terrorism knew no borders and thus it was important that the international community stood united and spoke with one voice on countering terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism, and especially on the importance of protecting human rights when doing so. The European Union expected the Council to fully live up to its mandate to protect the concrete human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings, and called on Member States to join consensus on the draft resolution. ACTION ON AMENDMENT L.63 Mexico, in an explanation of vote before the vote in relation to amendment L.63, noted that the right to self-determination had been indeed enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The content of the amendment, however was not relevant for this draft resolution and it moreover introduced a highly controversial element to the draft resolution, which sought to offer balanced and universal text. Rejection of this amendment did not imply rejection of the right to self-determination or liberation movements. The Council then rejected the amendment, by a vote of 6 in favour, 26 against and 14 abstentions. Action on L.50 United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, was pleased to join the consensus on this resolution regarding terrorism and human rights. It thanked the main sponsors for their efforts to merge together two related elements of the Council’s work into a single resolution, and for their willingness to improve many aspects of the text. It regretted that the short timeline to negotiate this resolution had left it unable to resolve all concerns. The United States made the following statement to supplement its general statement on agenda item 3 matters in order to clarify its position on certain issues pertinent to the resolution. It was essential that States respected their human rights obligations and commitments, including with regard to freedom of opinion and expression, while addressing the scourge of terrorism. The fact that States held the primary responsibility under international law to protect and promote human rights in the context of counterterrorism must continue to be the guiding principle of how the Council addressed this topic. The United States understood OP6 of the resolution to conform to the meaning laid out in OP9 of the Human Rights Council resolution 35/34. It understood the reference in OP7 to States’ acting “in accordance with their obligations under international law” to mean that, if a State carried out the stated actions within its criminal justice system, it should do so in a manner consistent with its applicable international obligations; it should not be understood to suggest the existence of particular obligations to implement the actions described. Nothing in this resolution, including OP12 and OP13 requested States to take certain actions to counter terrorism, nor altered States’ obligations under applicable international law, including decisions of the United Nations Security Council. The United States understood OP8 to mean that States must comply with their international obligations, including non-discrimination provisions of international human rights treaties which they were a party to, as applicable, when taking measures to counter terrorism and violent extremism. OP19 of this resolution reaffirmed the important role that civil society organizations and human rights defenders played in countering violent extremism by promoting a fair and just society, where all persons enjoyed their human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United States was gravely concerned that civil society groups and individual human rights defenders may be inappropriately targeted under unduly restrictive counterterrorism laws. It understood OP19 as calling upon States to ensure only that their counterterrorism efforts were implemented appropriately in a manner consistent with their international obligations. South Africa, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that two days ago the international community had observed the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It was the day that commemorated the Sharpeville massacre that had taken place in 1960 in South Africa when 69 protestors had been killed. For that reason, the matter was not theoretical for South Africa but quite literally a matter of life and death. However, absence of safeguards in L.50 was the reason that South Africa had tabled amendment L.63. Terrorism had to be robustly countered and it required a global response. However, the absence of safeguards could lead over time to abuses such as racial and religious profiling, hate speech, arbitrary arrest and detention. The Council adopted the draft resolution without a vote. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=22893&LangID=E (c) 2018 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on the Democratic Republic of Congo’s authorities to allow Radio Télévision Vision Grands Lacs (RTVGL), a TV channel based in Bukavu, in the eastern province of Sud-Kivu, to resume operating at once. RTVGL has been off the air since 2 March, when around ten members of the National Intelligence Agency (ANR) raided its headquarters and disconnected its broadcast signal. “The ANR has been demanding administrative documents from us for months,” RTVGL director Fammy Mikindo told RSF. “We provided them but now they want to fine us 15,000 dollars for operating illegally. This is unacceptable.” “The cited administrative and financial reasons do not, by any measure, constitute grounds for closing down a TV channel,” said Arnaud Froger, the head of RSF’s Africa desk. “Actions of this kind by the ANR pose a threat to the Congolese public’s freedom to be informed. Such interference must stop. Journalists are not criminals.” This is far from being the only case of media censorship by the ANR.Just two days ago, on 21 March, four ANR agents arrested Roberto Tshahe, a journalist with the CAS-INFO news website, in Kinshasa for publishing an interview with Francis Kalombo – a former ruling party official now allied with opposition politician Moïse Katumbi – in which he cast doubt on President Joseph Kabila’s Congolese nationality. Tshahe was interrogated for four hours and then released, after being warned by the ANR agents that he would be jailed or forced into exile if he ever published anything on this subject again. According to the latest report by the Congolese NGO Journalist in Danger, half of the press freedom violations registered in the DRC last year were carried out by members of the intelligence services. The DRC is ranked 154th out of 180 countries in RSF's 2017 World Press Freedom Index. https://rsf.org/en/news/drc-intelligence-agents-shut-down-tv-channel-bukavu (c) 2018 Reporters without Borders

This my second update on events in Afrin and beyond. After I wrote my first update (below) on Friday, March 16, it became apparent that the hoped-for last minute intervention by our government and/or the UN was not going to happen. The world stood by and did nothing as our worst fears unfolded. Afrin city was surrounded, and most of the surrounding territory was overrun by Turkish Jihadi ground troops killing, looting, and driving out civilians. On Sunday, March 18, Turkey took control of Afrin city, but it was largely empty. The defenders had made a strategic decision to evacuate as many civilians as possible and to have YPG soldiers retreat to wage a guerrilla war against the occupiers. There was no surrender. This all happened very quickly after Afrin's only remaining hospital was destroyed by Turkish bombs on March 16. (That is, the only functioning hospital in the region, not just the city.) There were dozens of bombing runs happening in and around the city, killing and severely wounding hundreds, if not thousands. Victims bled out on hospital floors as doctors were forced into triage, caring only for those most likely to survive. The city already had no water, electricity, food or medical supplies, and life there had become impossible. Turkey denies that all of this happened, but the photo, video, and testimonial evidence is overwhelming. President Tayyip Erdogan said from the very beginning of this war that he intended to remove Afrin’s population of almost one million (half refugees from other parts of Syria and half its pre civil war population—predominantly Kurds, with significant Yazidi, Christian, and other minority group residents). Its new “rightful” residents were to be Syrian refugees who had been living in refugee camps in Turkey: people who had never previously set foot in Afrin unless they passed through on their way to Turkey. Erdogan's stated plans have happened on an industrial scale. Based on UN estimates only 50,000 people remain in Afrin city, which had held approximately 350,000 pre-war, plus tens of thousands of refugees from other parts of Afrin who fled from the Turks. Only around 100,000 people (50% children) remain in rural areas that held around 400-500,00 people. If UN estimates are correct, only 150,000 out of almost one million pre-war inhabitants remain. Even as the bombs fell, Turkey was busing people in to live in the homes “cleansed” of their true owners. The scale and ruthlessness of this ethnic cleansing is almost impossible to believe. There was no international intervention as one country blatantly invaded another and cleansed an area of almost all of its population, in a period of only two months, due to vastly superior military hardware and larger armed forces. When it became clear that resistance was impossible, terrified people ran for their lives often with only the clothes on their backs. On March 16 and 17, as many as 500,000 civilians fled from Afrin. Even in Syria, with 12 million internal IDPs or external refugees, this is a huge number of new IDP’s in only a few days. Turkey bombed civilian vehicle convoys that stretched many kilometers long. Refugees then fled on foot over high mountain terrain in groups that also stretched for many kilometers. And they walked out, some heads held high, some laughing as they held their children’s hands as if they were on some pleasant family excursion. There were wounded and old people using walkers, mothers carrying babies in their arms. Videos and photos show most walkers wearing only light weight clothes without even a jacket, handbag or backpack. More recent ones show people in transport vehicles wearing winter jackets in the rain. Those without such clothes will be exposed to freezing temperatures, and many have no shelter at all and are sleeping on the side of roads. As later became clear, Turkish ground troops robbed or forced people to abandon vehicles, money, wallets, cell phones, and anything of value. These events barely made a ripple in the weekend news cycle. It is unclear where all the refugees are. There are UN reports that 120,000 are in a few Shiite majority villages and towns in Northern Aleppo (and other reports that Turkey and the Assad regime made an agreement that Turkey would not bomb these areas.) Some found shelter in Aleppo. Tens of thousands wait to enter regime held areas. Some 25,000 (estimate) are in the Kobani region. The Turks are shelling the areas where they were sheltering, and they have had to flee again. There is an acute need for immediate humanitarian aid for people inside and outside Afrin. But Erdogan has barred access to Afrin to UNICEF. The UN says looting, destruction of properties, and the civilian exodus continues. Erdogan claims to be providing Turkish humanitarian aid, but as the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Peter Maurer, said “the credibility of the Turkish Red Crescent working in Afrin with the Kurdish population is close to zero.” Throughout the Turkish invasion, there were reports that its Jihadi ground troops were executing civilians, stealing even their goats and chickens, their vehicles, and looting their homes. They stole everything they could lay their hands on in Afrin city as well. Videos they publish show a remarkable number of farm tractors being used as vehicles. In one video, they are shown killing a fleeing farmer in order to steal his tractor. They have stolen people’s homes and lands, farm animals, etc. Turkey promises to withdraw from Afrin when it finishes its “Olive Branch” mission. But the people it forced to leave will never be allowed to return home without vast international pressure that was absent before and during this invasion. There have been numerous reports of war crimes and genocide. The Syrian Islamic Council gave the Turkish ground troops a fatwa allowing them to kill SDF troops and do what they wanted to those who resisted or refused to adopt their version of Islam. Reportedly, Christians and Yazidis have been particular targets. I have received reports through a trusted source who spoke to people in hiding in Afrin that Jihadi troops have been told that killing a Christian gives them an automatic admission to heaven with its peculiar female delights. This is a new and particularly frightening concept, not previously promoted even by ISIS. Before the only sure admission ticket was to die in Jihad. Like ISIS, these Jihadi warriors (drawn from various Syrian extremist opposition forces, many formed by Turkey) view Yazidis with particular contempt as infidels. So soldiers have gone door to door, hunting for Christians and Yazidis and shooting them on sight. All 55 Yazidi villages were conquered, and most of their residents fled. Those who remain report that their homes have been marked with special insignia to designate their residents as Yazidis. This terrifies them. There is a heartbreaking video of an old man, a Yazidi, being abused by Turkish troops (self-published). Another Yazidi man reportedly refused to leave his home out of fear after the Turks ordered all civilians in his village to assemble in one place. He was killed on the spot. They are following the ISIS playbook by interrogating and summarily executing those who do not accept their particular understanding of Islam. Erdogan has now succeeded in further radicalizing an already extreme group of some 26,000 fighters (based on Turkey’s own numbers). Unfortunately, it will be difficult to document the full extent of the genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, deaths and injuries because Turkey is barring access to Afrin. Still, it is not too soon to start discussing charging Erdogan and his generals with war crimes and prepare for prosecutions in the International Criminal Court. Turkey is now stating that it will continue its campaign of cleansing beginning in Manjib and continuing to Quamishli (the defacto capital of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria). This will involve more ethnic cleansing and fighting with the SDF, which had previously been touted as the US’s partner in the fight against ISIS and terrorism. Turkey is openly challenging the US to a fight. Turkey is also threatening to invade Sinjar, scene of ISIS’s slaughter and imprisonment of its Yazidi population. ISIS has strengthened during the two month war. There are online videos of Chinese Uyghurs dressed in Turkish military garb clamoring to join Erdogan’s forces. Erdogan’s actions have re-energized the most radical elements of the Syrian opposition, and he has now trained what he claims is an army of 26,000 Jihadi warriors to fight, backed with his air and land firepower. Turkey is rousing its population to a fierce level of anti-American sentiment, hurling insults at our President, jailing anyone who speaks out against the Afrin invasion, and in many other ways signaling that it is no friend of the US or its NATO allies. It is embarking on a relentless campaign against its tiny remaining Christian community, accusing the imprisoned US Pastor Andrew Brunson of complicity in the 2016 coup. At any time convenient to Turkey’s President, its population could be roused to attack US military sites in Turkey. Turkey can be stopped now only with a clear US diplomatic and military threat of use of force. Tragically, we are right back where we were before the invasion of Afrin with the same options: confront Turkey or risk (or accept) losing the war against ISIS and other extremist groups, abandoning Syria to forces hostile to the US. That will also mean abandoning the nascent non-sectarian democracy in the DFNS, which could still be a model for all of Syria and beyond. SDF forces went beyond the borders of the DFNS at our request to fight ISIS to a finish with the expectation of a long term alliance with our country. It will be a great mistake to signal to Turkey that it can continue its depredations into DFNS territory and threat to take over the Sinjar region in Iraq. The SDF will have no choice but to abandon the fight against ISIS and “fort up” to defend its own heartland. The US government needs to decide what advantage Turkey offers as a partner under its current leadership. How does siding with Turkey in its campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Syria and its dictatorial and Islamist policies at home advance our national security interests and long term strategy for peace and stability (and democracy and pluralism) in the Middle East? Whatever decision is made, one million people are homeless, who two months ago lived in the one area in Syria that had not been ravaged by its civil war. They are in desperate need of humanitarian aid and a plan for resettlement or a forced reclamation of their lands and property. The YPG will continue a guerrilla war against Turkey in Afrin. Other military or terrorist actions can be expected by Kurds within Turkey and within other parts of Syria and in Iraq. The war against extremism and against ISIS is weakened in Iraq as well as in Syria. Some recent articles that document and explain the strategic nature of the decisions facing our country in dealings with Turkey are set out below. Kind regards, Lauren LAUREN B. HOMER ATTORNEY AT LAW HOMER INTERNATIONAL LAW LAW AND LIBERTY TRUST 1900 Campus Commons Drive Suite 100 Reston VA 20191 USA TEL: 703-961-1177 CELL: 703-303-7350 FAX: 703-348-2176 EMAIL: HOMER@HIL.US.COM WWW.HIL.US.COM WWW.LAWANDLIBERTYTRUST.ORG WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/LAWANDLIBERTYTRUST #LAWLIBERTY1 NOTICE: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. This message is intended solely for the addressee and is not intended to provide legal advice to anyone who does not have a formal attorney-client relationship with the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by replying to this message. Then delete it from your computer. E-mail transmission may not be secure or error free. Please notify the sender if you wish have e-mail messages encrypted or receive a different type of communication. Advice about federal tax matters is not a full “covered opinion” under IRS Circular 230. It is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding IRS penalties, and it may not be distributed to any person or entity other than the addressee or to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matters addressed. (c) 2018 Homer International Law

Rakhine 1. The spokesperson for the President Office, U Zaw Htay, said 16 people including seven members of military are facing actions for their alleged roles in extra judicial killing of 10 Rohingyas. U Zaw Htay said after Reuters news agency published a report on killing of villagers of Inn Din village. 2. Reuters journalists said they were arrested because they have conducted investigated into the killing of Rohingyas from Inn Din village. The journalists made the comment after coming out of the court room on 14 February. They are charged under the section 3 of the Official Secret Act after police found secret documents in their hands at the time of their arrest. 3. The Ministry of Home Affairs told Frontier news agency on February 10that the head of Inn Din village administration is under investigation for giving information to Reuters news agency. Also at least five villagers reportedly are also facing investigation in connection with the same incident. 4. The Rakhine State government said claim by Associated Press that mass graves of hundreds of people were found near Gutar Pyin village in Buthitaung was not true. The state government said on 2 February after a government team investigated into the claim. The spokesperson of the Rakhine State government U Tin Maung Swe said the reports of mass graves was misleading. 5. The spokesperson for the President Office U Zaw Htay said the government will not allow international investigation team to visit Rakhine State. The government reacted to a call by the European Union to send an investigation team to probe into the incidents in Rakhine State. 6. The Maungdaw District court on 21 February sentenced people who were facing charges for their alleged role in 2016 October terrorist attack. The special tribunal of the court sentenced 4 Rohingya to death as well as 25 people to 50 years imprisonment and 34 people to 18 years. 7. The spokesperson of the President Office, U Zaw Htay, said on 20 February that terrorists could be hiding among those who are living inside the Zero line on Myanmar Bangladesh border. He said they are aim to put up a political trap for the two governments. 8. The refugees who were in the Zero Line have moved into Bangladesh after discussion between Myanmar and Bangladeshi governments. Some people living in no man’s land have dismantled their shelters and moved into Bangladesh on 26 February. 9. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Immigration and Manpower Department, U Myint Kyaing, said on 13 February that more people from Rakhine State were fleeing to Bangladesh due to threat by ARSA terrorist group. 10. U Zaw Htay said on 24 February that burned villages were cleared by using bulldozers to construct new roads. The Human Rights Watch accused the government of destroying 50 villages. The group provided satellite pictures of the villages as evidence. 11. The Minister of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement, Dr Win Myat Aye, said the government will conduct tour for diplomats to visit the sites for reception of Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh. He said the diplomats will visit in three groups to the sites on 6, 9 and 15 February. 12. The Minister of Labor, Immigration and Manpower, U Thein Swe, said it would be more convenient if refugees were send back before the monsoon season. The minister travelling will be restricted during the rainy season and more chances for diseases. 13. The Minister of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement said many refugees could be returned by mid- March. Dr Win Myat Aye said on 22 February that as the lists of returnees provided by Bangladesh were assessed, it would be possible to repatriate refugees within two weeks. 14. The Minister of Labor Immigration and Manpower said the government was trying to explain in dignified manner to the international community that Rohingya people does not exist in Myanmar. The Minister said in parliament on 5 February in response to a question by MP from Matman Township on how the government would inform to the international community that Rohingya does not exist in Myanmar. 15. The Ministry of Home Affairs said 4 Rohingya youths were arrested on 6 February. They were arrested in Chin State after they came into the state from Indian border. In other incident, 5 Rohingya girls were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for travelling without permission. They were arrested in Rekhawda in Chin State where they came from Mizoram State in India. 16. The Ministry of Home Affairs said Rakhine Buddhist families from Bangladesh came to Maungtaw on 22 February. The Ministry said they were forced to flee due to attacks by Muslims. The government is calling Rakhine Buddhists to return back to Myanmar and they are provided with house and land for cultivation. 17. Rakhine families from Thantwe were moved to Maungtaw after the latest violent incidents in Rakhine State, with intention to protect Myanmar territory. The 60 Rakhine families from four townships in Rakhine State including Thantwe have arrived to Thinbaw Kwe village and they are to be relocated to In Dinn village to be built by Myanmar government. 18. Home-made guns and explosives were found at a home of Rakhine man in Myay Pone Township in Rakhine State on 17 February. However, the news was not reported in local media. 19. The Muslims Kaman students in Thantwe who are to sit in matriculation exams said they face discrimination. Their roll numbers were separated from other students and they are mentioned as Bengalis in the student list. The student parents said normally the student roll numbers are set in alphabetical orders. 20. The parents of students in three Kaman villages in Sittwe Township in Rakhine State said their children are losing education opportunities. The chair of Kaman Progressive Party said Kaman students have been denied to join middle school since 2012 sectarian violence in the state. 21. A MP from Rakhine has called for dismantlement of Arabic schools in the northern Rakhine State and to substitute them with government schools. U Phe Than, a MP from Myay Pone Township in Rakhine State was speaking at the lower house of parliament during a debate on Rakhine issue on 20 February. 22. The displaced Muslims from Kyauk Phyu Township have requested the government to allow them to return to their places of origin. However, the Rakhine residents of the town are refusing to allow the Muslims to come back. Meiktila 23. So-called nationalists rejected a plan by the government to resettle displaced Muslims in Yan Myo Aung ward. They expressed their opinion when the government conducted survey on 18 February on public opinion on its plan. 24. After the authorities ban mass prayers by Muslims in Meiktila, in a new restriction was imposed the authorities ordered on 26 February to close down summer religious classes for Muslim students. According to local Muslims the ban of classes were at the pressure of so-called nationalists. Kayin 25. A pagoda was built on a land own by Muslim in Hline Bwe Township in Kayin State. It was built on 8 February in Pa Ta village in Pine Kyone sub-township on the land own by an elderly Muslim woman Daw Ahsiyar Bi. The commander of the Border Guard Force has participated in building of the pagoda. Ayeyarwaddy 26. The Ministry of Home Affairs said a group of 21 Kaman Muslims from Rakhine State were arrested on 3 February near Ah Thin Su village in Nyaungtone Township in Ayeyarwaddy Region. They were arrested after the police accused them of travelling without permission. The Kaman are one of among 135 recognized ethnic groups in Myanmar and their arrest show discrimination they are facing. 27. On 13 February, a Muslim man eloped with a Buddhist woman in Aine Tha Byu village in Lay Myat Hnar Township. They fall in love but it was used to incite religious hatred by saying that Buddhist woman was deceived by Muslim man. Yangon 28. The Northern District Court on 9 February indicted three people in connection with the murder of prominent Muslim lawyer U Ko Ni on charges which carries maximum death penalty. Kyi Linn, Aung Win Zaw and Zeyar Phyo were charged for murder under section 302 (1) (b) and also under section 34 for conspiracy to murder. 29. The defense lawyer in U Ko Ni Murder case said his clients would appeal against the order by District Court the charges which carries maximum death penalty. The Northern District court charged the four person on 9 February. 30. The brother of the main suspect in U Ko Ni murder case was given bail by Yangon Northern District Court on 22 February. Aung Win Htun, brother of Aung Win Khaing was given bail at a surety bond of Kyat 50 million. He is charged under the section 212 of penal code for allegedly helping his brother to commit the murder. Aung Win Htun driven his brother to the site murder. Aung Win Khaing is still evading arrest and he was declared as fugitive by the court. 31. During a court hearing on murder of U Ko Ni on 2 February four ultra-nationalists supporters of the main accused Kyi Linn in the case gathered in front of the court. They were wearing T-shirt emblazon with “you eat well” which was taken by persecution side as threat to them. The four were charged with crimination defamation. 32. A man was charged with criminal deformation after a post on social media on a charity event he organized include provocative messages linked to murder of NLD lawyer U Ko Ni. Tin Lin Hteik was charged after a post on his social media page on the charity event he organized on 10 February in Tharkayta Township included a picture of woman shooting at other woman standing while holding a child (it was the exact depiction of the scene of U Ko Ni murder). The gunwoman in the picture was wearing T shirt emblazoned with “you eat well”. 33. A post on social media on 19 February said refurbishment of a Hindu temple in Lahar Yat village in Thanlyin Township was halted after a group of so-called nationalists put pressure on authorities to do so. 34. The Buddha Dhamma Charitable Organization (a successor organization to Ma Ba Tha) issued a statement on 5 February to protest use of Pali words by Christians. The statement said the Pali words are exclusively for Buddhist religion not for others. 35. The Union Election Commission rejected application for establishment of a pro-nationalist party. A key member of the rejected party Maung Thway Chun said he would joined the party which already got registration. The Nationalist party has applied for registration on 2 August but the commission rejected the application 24 November. 36. A leading ultra-nationalist monk, Wirathu, called his supporters on 17 February to say “you eat well” loud enough that the whole world could hear. He was speaking at an event marked the birthday of a fellow monk U Tilawkabi Wuntha held at Yangon’s Insein Ywama monastery. 37. A media conference calling for action against U Wirathu was scheduled to be held on 25 February at the office of Myanmar Journalist network, however, it was forced to held as a low- key event after Ma Ba Tha monks gathered in large numbers inside the office. 38. The police said in a statement issued on 2 February that legal action would be taken against the man who threw a Molotov cocktail into the compound of the residence of the State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon. It said the action will be taken against the man despite of the fact that he is mentally instable. The attack took placed on 1 February and he was arrested on the next day. (c) 2018 BHRN

Here at 21Wilberforce, we were touched by a recent visit of concerned leaders who compelled us to raise Pastor Brunson’s case once again to ask for your continued action and prayers. The increasing urgency of Pastor Brunson’s situation is clear: He is sinking under the weight of his false imprisonment; he is weak; he has lost well over 50 pounds. When we heard these urgent updates, we remembered the other prisoners we have known who told us upon their release how much strength they received when they were remembered while in prison. In testimony before the United Nations earlier this month, Pastor Andrew’s daughter spoke of his dramatic deterioration. She shared this note from him: “Let it be clear, I am in prison not for anything I have done wrong, but because of who I am — a Christian pastor. I desperately miss my wife and children. Yet, I believe this to be true, it is an honor to suffer for Jesus Christ, as many have before me. My deepest thanks to all those around the world who are standing with and praying for me.” Our request of you, as committed activists and people of prayer, is to keep asking these questions: Why is Pastor Brunson still imprisoned after a year and a half of wrongful detention? How could this peaceful American pastor, a servant of the Turkish people for two decades, be so cynically held on outrageously fabricated charges? Pastor Brunson has languished in prison since early October 2016 under false charges of terrorist activity. Clearly, a larger game is being played here. This faithful minister has become a bargaining chip in what the Turkish regime hopes will be an exchange for the extradition of a Turkish national residing in the United States — a totally unrelated case. Here are some key facts: Pastor Brunson represents the best of our Christian tradition as a self-sacrificing servant in a foreign land. He has led a Presbyterian congregation in Izmir, the ancient biblical city of Smyrna, for the last 20 years, where he and his family have peacefully resided. Commissioners from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) have visited him in prison. Vice President Pence, among many others in the US Government, have repeatedly raised his case. The pressing message from Pastor Brunson’s daughter and family members, from his home church and legal team is clear: “Don’t forget Andrew, and don’t let others forget either.” In response, 21Wilberforce continues its own vigil to share Pastor Brunson’s story and work to secure his swift release. Recently, our Distinguished Senior Fellow Frank Wolf reached out to Wheaton College (Pastor Brunson’s alma mater) to enlist their support. This esteemed Christian university, a vanguard of the international religious freedom movement, will convene a special assembly on behalf of Pastor Brunson for its student body and friends of the college. We wonder: Will others do the same at this crucial time — simply raise his name? Many have done so already, faithfully, but clearly we need to make our voices louder. Will students at other universities also host assemblies for Pastor Brunson? Or simply mention his name at an assembly? How about at churches? Or home groups and bible studies? Or around the supper table? And you? Will you raise his name in your schools, universities, churches, and homes? Below are some resources you can use to lift your voice in support. As an encouragement to his family and congregation, we invite you to share your efforts and prayers of support with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Thank you for this simple act of remembering Andrew Brunson. Sharon Payt Executive Director Take Action: 1. Contact Vice President Pence and ask him to advocate for Pastor Brunson’s immediate release: The White House, Office of the Vice President, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20500 2. Visit the USCIRF website to learn more about Pastor Brunson and his imprisonment as his case unfolds 3. Add your name to the petition to free Pastor Andrew Brunson today (c) 2018 Wilberforce Initiative

MEXICO CITY — The man who sent my parents to their death, along with thousands of other people, died while under house arrest a few weeks ago. He was 90 years old and serving 14 life sentences. Death has died, and yet it brings me no joy. In Córdoba, the Argentine province where I was born, death was named Luciano Benjamín Menéndez. I saw him on the street on a winter afternoon in 1996. I was 18 years old, studying at a friend’s house, when my friend’s mother announced, “Menéndez is out on the sidewalk.” I peered through the window and watched as he stepped out of a car and walked to a house across the street, where his daughter lived. Old age had slowed his stride — he was close to 70 at the time — but he retained the arrogant demeanor of a military officer. His family came out to meet him. No hugs were exchanged. I was gripped by fright, and for the remainder of the afternoon we stayed far away from the windows. Running across a person who had committed genocide was always a possibility in Argentina in the 1990s. The dictatorship had ended, but many people had walked free, thanks to the laws, pardons and cunning of later governments that refused to pursue full justice. Murderers bought groceries at the supermarket, torturers waited in line at the bank. I learned that Mr. Menéndez went to the same cardiologist as the mother of a friend. I had always been afraid of that man with those eyebrows, wide and black like coal. When I was a little girl I was terrified by the stories I heard of the torture and thousands of murders he ordered and oversaw at La Perla, a clandestine detention camp. There was one image of him in particular, clutching a knife in a gesture of rage, that always filled me with horror. That photograph was etched into the collective memory of Argentina, taken just when he tried to kill a group of protesters in 1984, a few months after the military junta lost power. Mr. Menéndez acted as if he owned the lives of others, and from 1975 to 1979, he did. He was the commander of the Third Army Corps during Argentina’s last military dictatorship, with 10 provinces under his charge. His cruelty was such that he regarded Jorge Rafael Videla, the dictator who had led the charge in the coup d’état of 1976, 42 years ago this week, as “soft.” Mr. Menéndez was not a lone madman, though. The Argentine armed forces carried out genocide because they were hired guns at the service of economic and military powers that fleeced the country (the foreign debt went to $46 billion, from $9.5 billion, under the junta). And for that reason they exterminated the people who irked them, like my parents: Ester Felipe, a psychologist, and Luis Mónaco, a journalist. Both were members of the People’s Revolutionary Army. My mother was 27 at the time, my father 30, and I was 25 days old. When I lived in Argentina I always dreaded the possibility of coming face to face with the people who had murdered my parents and so many other opponents of the regime. Other children of the disappeared, though, wanted to confront them, insult them. And every time they did, we would celebrate over our little moral victory. My generation grew up seeing these killers not being brought to justice. We felt vulnerable, frustrated and angry. This may sound like an exaggeration, but this frustration seeped into everything. What, we asked, was the point of democracy? Our frustration gave way to an idea: If the authorities were going to let criminals walk the streets, we would turn the streets into a prison. In 1995, the children of people disappeared, murdered, exiled and imprisoned for political reasons founded the Sons and Daughters for Identity and Justice, Against Forgetting and Silence, or Hijos. We would find out the home addresses of these mass murderers, photograph them, then walk through their neighborhoods in a peaceful protest. The idea was to alert the neighborhood: “Watch out, there’s a murderer living here.” We called it “escrache,” which means “exposure.” It was our way of fighting impunity. We didn’t have to investigate anything about Mr. Menéndez, because we all knew where he lived. Calle Ilolay, 3269, in Córdoba. A one-story house, with white walls and a tile roof. He entered and exited at his leisure, attended official events and traveled around the city without protection, just as he had that afternoon in front of my friend’s house. None of us, however, the tens of thousands of families whose relatives had been disappeared, chose the path of violence. In 2013 I saw Mr. Menéndez again: in a courtroom, during a trial — the La Perla “mega-trial,” with 52 defendants and 716 victims. I was witness No. 167. When the judge called me to the stand, I stood there facing Mr. Menéndez. His hair, totally gray, was slick with gel, and his eyebrows were still black. What once had been large under-eye circles were now large bags of hanging skin. His eyes were glassy with an icy, pitiless stare. I testified on behalf of my family, those who were living and those who had died along the way. We, the survivors of a bloody dictatorship, were the ones who pushed the government to prosecute the murderers with the legal guarantees that they had denied our dead. “Lots of people will be happy if I die,” Mr. Menéndez once said in an interview. But he was wrong. We do not forgive him, nor do we cry for him, but we are not happy, either. We don’t celebrate death. When he died he left cloaked in cowardly silence, never revealing where he hid the remains of our loved ones. His family, however, was able to bury him because he died in a very different Argentina from the one he terrorized. He died in a country that was more just, which was what our parents had wanted. Mr. Menéndez went to his grave with more life sentences than anyone else in the history of Argentina. And though there are days when I feel that no conviction will ever be enough, the day that he died I felt proud, because I was able to say to my 7-year-old son that his grandparents’ murderer died a convicted man, that the struggle is worth it, that justice is something that can be built. © 2018 | The New York Times

On March 6, 2018, Jubilee Campaign, along with our partners at CSW, ADF, the WEA, and ERLC, sponsored a side event at the UN in Geneva highlighting the growing restrictions on Christians and other religious minorities in Malaysia. From the Left: Moderator Gregory Treat, Panelists Gayle Jokinin, UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed, Eugene Yapp Malaysia is often admired as a moderate Muslim-majority country that upholds democratic values and human rights. Unfortunately, Christians face serious and growing restrictions to their religious freedom. These include, in no particular order, restrictions on registering churches, government restrictions on what words Christians can use for God, prohibitions against witnessing to Muslims, or publicly disputing the core claims of Islam, and a number of laws aimed at preventing conversions from Islam to Christianity, and punishing those who dare to leave the Muslim religion for faith in Jesus Christ. The event highlighted one of the most insidious legal structures currently at work in Malaysia, the registration of religion on Malaysian ID cards. All Malaysian ID cards carry an RFID chip which contains among other things, the person's religion as registered with the government. Further, Muslims actually have their faith printed on their ID. This system allows any official to know, with merely a glance at your ID card, whether you belong to the dominant Muslim class. However, there is a long history in Malaysia of wrongly registering people as Muslims. In one particularly egregious example related by Gayle Jokinin, indigenous peoples in Eastern Malaysia, also known as North Borneo, were asked to sign a number of papers in order to qualify for aid, some of which included a written declaration that they were converting to Islam. As most of these indigenous peoples are illiterate, they did not even know what they were signing. But today as their children enter society and get ID cards, those cards list them as Muslim, and they come under heavy pressure to conform to their government assignment Muslim identity. They must put their children into Islamic religious instruction, cannot marry non-Muslims, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Sharia courts. This same is true of anyone whose parents or grandparents ever formally converted, or married a Muslim. Gayle Jokinin speaking on the plight of Malaysian Christians As Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief noted: "You cannot force anyone to declare their religion, and when that is done, especially on ID cards, they may be used as a way to discriminate on access to services, sometimes to very basic services. So in all contexts where religion appears on an ID card it becomes an instrument for discrimination or privileged treatment on account of religion. Despite these challenges, we were encouraged that members of the Malaysian Mission to the UN in Geneva, attended the event, and we look forward to positive engagement with them in the future. Please pray That the Malaysian Government removes religion from its ID cards, and allows people to freely convert to the religion of their choice. that the network of laws effectively serving as blasphemy and apostasy codes in Malaysia will be repealed. That the Christians in Malaysia would grow in unity and be able to speak with one voice. Finally, thank you so much for your support. It is your support which allows us to put on events like this on behalf of our Christian brothers and sisters in the future. (c) 2018 Jubilee Campaign

The Cumhuriyet newspaper trial’s prosecutor requested sentences of up to 15 years in prison today for 13 of the newspaper’s journalists and managers. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns the trial as a “sinister farce” and urges as many people as possible to turn out in support of the journalists at the next hearing, at which the court is expected to issue verdicts. At today’s hearing, the prosecutor asked the court to convict 13 of the 18 defendants of “assisting a terrorist organization,” a charge that carries a maximum jail term of 15 years. They include well-known investigative reporter Ahmet Şık, editorial writer Kadri Gürsel, editor-in-chief Murat Sabuncu and managing director Akın Atalay. Atalay’s provisional detention was extended today until the next hearing, to be held from 24 to 27 April. The only defendant not to have been released provisionally, he has already spent more than 500 days in prison. The court mentioned the possibility that he might try to flee although he returned to Turkey of his own volition and made himself available to judges when he learned that his colleagues had been arrested in October 2016. “Like the rest of the trial that we have been observing for the past eight months, today’s summing-up by the prosecutor criminalizes journalism,” said Erol Önderoğlu, RSF’s Turkey representative. “The heavy sentences requested by the prosecutor are based on a politicized and conspiracy-theorist interpretation of media work. More than ever, we demand the acquittal of Cumhuriyet’s journalists and managers, and we urge as many people as possible to come to the next hearing in a show of solidarity.” The prosecutor also called for Cumhuriyet accountant Emre İper to be convicted of “terrorist propaganda” on the basis of his tweets, for the acquittal of three of the defendants (Turhan Günay, Günseli Özaltay and Bülent Yener), for the withdrawal of the “abuse of authority” charges against the newspaper’s managers, and for the cases against Can Dündar and İlhan Tanır, who are now living abroad, to be handled separately. In recent years Cumhuriyet has published many stories that have embarrassed the authorities and it has become one of the spearheads of Turkey’s independent media, which are being subjected to more harassment than ever. Because of its role, it was awarded the RSF Press Freedom Prize in 2015. The judicial authorities accuse Cumhuriyet’s journalists and managers of carrying out a “radical change of editorial line” in order to support the goals of what are regarded in Turkey as three “terrorist organizations”: the movement led by the Muslim preacher Fethullah Gülen, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and a small far-left group known as the DHKP/C. In fact, the ideologies of these three organizations could not be more disparate and all three were constantly criticized by the newspaper. Turkey is ranked 155th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index. The already worrying media situation has become critical under the state of emergency proclaimed after a coup attempt in July 2016. Around 150 media outlets have been closed, mass trials are being held and the country now holds the world record for the number of professional journalists detained. https://rsf.org/en/news/turkey-prosecutor-requests-long-jail-terms-13-defendants-cumhuriyet-trial (c) 2018 Reporters without Borders