Daily Brief Audio Series
On the one hand, it’s incredible how quickly people seem to have forgotten the Covid-19 pandemic – it impacted all our lives profoundly, but no one talks about it anymore. On the other hand, it’s not really so surprising. Few want to dwell on difficult memories, new crises replace old ones in media headlines, life moves on.
But it is truly astounding how those in power have forgotten the lessons of the pandemic.
The official global death toll from Covid-19 is at least 7.1 million, but estimates looking at excess deaths around the world suggest double or triple that number. The economic and social disruptions of the pandemic were devastating. And “coronavirus remains a significant killer” today.
You’d think governments would want to learn from this experience, so they can respond more effectively in future global health crises. Apparently not.
Member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) are in Geneva right now in another round of negotiations for a new international agreement to address pandemics. Their aim is to improve international systems of prevention, preparedness, and response.
But after two years of these negotiations, the draft text in its current form still has serious problems, notably on human-rights grounds, in light of past lessons.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, wealthy governments hoarded healthcare resources and prioritized private profit over human life by blocking efforts to waive intellectual property rules. Pharmaceutical companies refused to share technology widely, limiting global production of lifesaving health products, like vaccines, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
Human rights got trampled during the pandemic in so many other ways, as well.
Many governments closed schools without adequate alternatives, with devastating impacts on children’s learning and development. Others rushed to endorse online learning platforms without regard to how those systems surveilled children.
Governments frequently failed to ensure the rights of older people and people with disabilities. They also failed to address the deep impact of the pandemic on women and girls, and a global surge in violence against women.
Some governments weaponized public health responses to target activists and opponents and violate the rights of asylum seekers.
And, despite the pandemic, many governments also still failed to meet public healthcare spending targets, leaving many people unable to access needed care.
Such government missteps and neglect during the Covid-19 pandemic were precisely the reason the WHO’s World Health Assembly established a body to negotiate a new international agreement on pandemics.
But if governments negotiating the deal in Geneva now fail to remember and recognize the mistakes of the last pandemic, they are all too likely to repeat them.
Sudan’s domestic conflict is being fought with weapons supplied internationally.
The two main warring parties – the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – have both been responsible for widespread war crimes and other atrocities in the war that’s been raging in Sudan since April last year. And both have freshly acquired modern, foreign-made weapons and military equipment.
A couple weeks ago, we highlighted how the warring parties were not hiding their atrocity crimes but rather openly broadcasting them on social media. The same is true for their newly obtained weapons.
New research looks at photos and videos posted on the social media platforms Facebook, Telegram, TikTok, and X (formerly known as Twitter). Most were seemingly filmed by fighters themselves, from both sides. The apparently new equipment includes armed drones, drone jammers, anti-tank guided missiles, truck-mounted multi-barrel rocket launchers, and mortar munitions.
The newly identified weapons – not previously known to be in the hands of Sudanese actors – were produced by companies registered in China, Iran, Russia, Serbia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). How the warring parties obtained them exactly is unknown, but evidence suggests it was likely recently acquired after the start of the current conflict in April 2023.
This is, to say the very least, hugely irresponsible given the gravity of the conflict and the severity of the horrors that have been happening in Sudan. Countless civilians have been killed, millions have been internally displaced, and millions face famine. The SAF and the RSF may use these new weapons and equipment to continue to commit atrocities.
In fact, it may have already happened. Two verified videos filmed by drones and posted on pro-SAF social media accounts show the drones attacking unarmed people in civilian clothes in the area of the capital, Khartoum.
There is a partial arms embargo on Sudan, but it only prohibits the transfer of military equipment to the western region of Darfur. The UN Security Council established this embargo in 2004, when Darfur was embroiled in an earlier atrocity-ridden conflict.
The arms embargo has had problems since the beginning – the governments of Belarus, China, and Russia have violated the embargo for years – but the “Darfur-only” side of it makes no sense at all today, in the context of a conflict affecting most of Sudan’s federal states.
UN Security Council members have an opportunity to close this out-of-date loophole on Wednesday, September 11, when they are expected to discuss the renewal of Sudan sanctions. The idea faces opposition, not least from the Sudanese government, which wants to scrap the embargo altogether.
But if Security Council members put Sudan’s millions of victims first, what they should do is obvious.
Repression in the run-up to Venezuela’s recent presidential election was severe, and it’s only got worse since.
In fact, the authorities’ actions following the July 28 vote read rather suspiciously like a to-do list for how to steal an election – or try to.
First, declare yourself the winner.
Just several hours after polls closed, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council announced incumbent Nicolás Maduro had won, with more than 51 percent of the vote. There were few, if any, real details given. The Council still has not released the tally sheets from the election, nor conducted the audits and citizen verification processes, as required by law.
Second, unleash a massive crackdown on those who question your declared victory.
Thousands have taken to the streets, in largely peaceful protests, to demand a fair counting of the votes. In response, the authorities and pro-government armed groups known as “colectivos” have committed widespread human rights abuses against critics. This includes harassment, detentions, prosecutions, and killings.
Resistance and repression have been seen particularly in low-income areas traditionally supportive of the Chavismo movement of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez.
Venezuelan authorities themselves claim to have arrested more than 2,400 people in connection with protests. The rights group Foro Penal recorded more than 1,580 “political prisoners” arrested since July 29, including 114 children.
And the crackdown continues. Just this week, a judge issued an arrest warrant against opposition candidate Edmundo González for “conspiracy,” “incitement to disobedience,” and other alleged crimes.
Third, ignore international concerns.
The UN Electoral Technical Team and the Carter Center, which observed the elections, said the process lacked transparency and integrity. They questioned the declared result and said the precinct-level tally sheets the opposition had made public were reliable. The Carter Center noted those numbers showed González had likely won the election by a significant margin.
The governments of Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico have all called for talks with the Venezuelan government. The Permanent Council of the Organization of American States has approved a resolution urging Venezuelan authorities to publish the precinct-level tally sheets. It also urged authorities to respect human rights.
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who is investigating crimes against humanity in Venezuela, has said his office is actively monitoring the situation.
Thus far, however, it seems Maduro’s government is dismissing international concerns just as stubbornly as it is rejecting Venezuelans’ votes and brutally repressing Venezuelans’ voices.
The UK government has announced it is suspending some arms sales to Israel. Following a review of export licenses, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said there was a “clear risk” they might be used to commit “a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”
While yesterday’s decision is of course welcome, it doesn’t go far enough.
Under the UK’s arms export rules, licenses cannot be granted where there is a clear risk the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law – that is, the laws of war.
The Israeli military’s conduct of hostilities in Gaza makes it all too clear that UK arms could be used in grave abuses by the Israeli military. Such abuses not only include unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure but also Israel starving Gaza through an unlawful blockade of sufficient food and essential humanitarian aid.
In short: selling weapons to Israel could make the UK complicit in war crimes.
Human rights groups, including HRW, have brought a legal challenge to try to stop the UK selling arms to Israel.
Since 2015, the UK has licensed hundreds of millions of pounds worth of military exports to Israel, including components for combat aircrafts, missiles, tanks, technology, small arms and ammunition. The UK provides approximately 15% of the components in the F-35 stealth bomber aircraft currently being used in Gaza.
And this brings us to one serious problem with yesterday’s announcement: the partial suspension of UK arms sales to Israel did not include components for the F-35, a “workhorse of Israel’s brutal bombing campaign.”
Such an omission – as my expert colleague Yasmine Ahmed, HRW’s UK Director, says – “shows either a miscomprehension of the law or a willful disregard. The secretary of state shouldn’t make exemptions.”
The struggle thus continues to get the UK government to stop providing arms to Israel for its atrocity-ridden military campaign in Gaza.
And, of course, the concern over atrocity crimes in and around Gaza extends further, well beyond the UK and Israel. The hostages illegally held for nearly 11 months by Hamas and then shot dead just last week spring immediately to mind, both because of the horror of the act itself and the public outrage in Israel it has fueled.
All the warring parties – including Israel, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad – should stop targeting civilians, and all countries supplying arms – including the UK, US, Germany, and Iran – should stop doing so.
The Kremlin has announced Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit Mongolia tomorrow.
The announcement has sparked a flurry of media questions and diplomatic concerns, because Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Mongolia, as a member of the ICC, is obligated to arrest him.
The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin last year in relation to the ICC’s ongoing Ukraine investigation. The charges – also leveled against Russia’s children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova – concern the mass abduction of children from Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine.
As we’ve pointed out in this newsletter several times before, the forced transfer of populations from occupied territory is a war crime.
Regular readers of this Daily Brief may find something familiar in the Mongolia situation.
Last year, Putin sought to attend the BRICS summit in Johannesburg, the top-level meeting bringing together Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. However, because South Africa is an ICC member, the government was reminded of its obligations to arrest Putin if he appeared on South African soil.
In the end, South Africa announced – after a “number of consultations” – Putin would not be coming to the summit in person after all.
Whether it’s South Africa then or Mongolia now, Putin’s motivation in these efforts seems clear enough. He wants to be seen not as the fugitive from international justice that he is, but as an accepted international leader.
If he can convince governments to host him on a visit, it’s good optics for him. If that government is an ICC member, even better from his standpoint.
So, all eyes on Ulaanbaatar today: what will Mongolia do?
The drama of a fugitive trying to escape justice makes for good media headlines, but let’s remember first and foremost what all this is actually about: the countless Ukrainian children Russia has abducted and forcibly transferred to other occupied territories in Ukraine or deported to Russia.
They’ve placed many Ukrainian kids in Russian foster and adoptive families, assigned them Russian nationality, and separated them permanently from their Ukrainian families, communities, culture, and country.
No one knows what exactly will happen in the next 24 hours. Will Putin go to ICC member Mongolia? If so, will Mongolia uphold its obligation to arrest him? Or will the visit get cancelled as it did with South Africa last year?
The only thing anyone knows for sure is it will be another 24 hours of rotten injustice for all those abducted Ukrainian kids.