Host: Rodrigo Duterte was president of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022. He made it his mission to rid the country of drugs. 

Duterte: My campaign against drugs will not stop, until the last pusher and the last drug lord are (mimics sound of throat being slit, applause) 

Host: Duterte’s war on drugs had a lot of casualties. 

Maria: Within four hours of Duterte taking his oath of office, the first killing happened. In 2016, an average of eight dead bodies a night. 

Host:  In his six years as president, it has been estimated that the Philippine police and their agents killed anywhere between 12 and 30 thousand drug suspects. 

Carlos: Without due process, often in the dead of night, the police would, raid homes, arrest suspects, uh, shoot them down. And even in some instances, plant evidence against them to justify the killings. 

Host: Human Rights Watch spent years documenting the extra-judiicial killings. 

HRW video: [Tagolog speaker] Translation: They showed us a photograph of the body, exactly how we found it, last night, but without a gun laying next to it. 

Host: The sheer scope of the killings got the attention of international media. Reuters won a Pulitzer for its reporting. The New York Times also won a Pulitzer, for its photography. Filipina/American journalist Maria Ressa even won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to safeguard freedom of expression during Duterte’s drug war... 

Maria: The first casualty in the Philippines battle for facts is the exact number of people killed in this brutal drug war. 

Host: Yet in spite of the great reporting, and all the international attention ... when Durterte left office in 2022 he was very popular. He seemed untouchable. So a lot of Filipinos, including Duterte, were caught off guard on March 11th, 2025. 

Deutche Welle: Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has been arrested on an International Criminal Court warrant for Crimes Against Humanity. 

BBC: Local media saying Mr. Duterte has been seen boarding a plane in Manila... 

Deutche Welle: The ICC has been investigating the mass killings that happened during Duterte’s crackdown on illegal drugs.  

Carlos: So when the arrest happened, it was like total shock for everybody.  

Host: Is justice on the way for the victims and their families? What does Duterte’s arrest mean for other leaders with ICC warrants out for their arrest, like Russia's Vladimir Putin and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu? 

This is Rights & Wrongs, a podcast from Human Rights Watch. I'm Ngofen Mputubwele. I am a writer, a lawyer, and a radio producer. Human Rights Watch asked me to look at human rights hotspots around the world through the eyes and ears of people on the front lines of history. 

This week, the arrest of Rodrigo Duterte. 

We're going to look at what he’s accused of, how he was arrested, and what his detention means for international justice. 

Ngofeen: First question as always, , who are you and what do you do? 

Carlos: Yeah, so I am Carlos Conde. I'm, the Philippines researcher for Human Rights watch. I've been in this job for 13 years now. 

Host: Before Human Rights Watch, Carlos worked as a journalist. And he often found himself writing about a former prosecutor turned mayor by the name of Rodrigo Duterte. 

Carlos: Incidentally, many of the years that he was mayor of Davao at the time, I was also based there as a journalist reporting for, uh, the New York Times. 

Host: Davao City, the third biggest city in the Philippines, is in the South. Duterte was mayor there from 1988 to 2016, with a few short breaks in that long tenure. Extrajudicial killings of suspected drug offenders seem to have started in Davao City during his first term, in the mid-1990s. 

Carlos: The killings of suspected criminals were so rampant that there were hundreds, even thousands who were, who were killed when he was mayor there. 

Host: Hundreds. Thousands. Those are numbers, and getting the numbers right is important, as we'll hear about later. But as a journalist, Carlos had to tell stories. And one of those stories belonged to a woman by the name of Clarita Alia... 

Minda News/Clarita Alia: [voice in Tagalog, fade under] 

Carlos: Clarita Alia at the time and still to today, she was a vegetable vendor in a public market in Davao City. So she goes around the city pushing her vegetable cart, selling vegetables. It was a tough, uh, job, uh, livelihood to do, and she's still doing that. 

Host: Twenty some years ago she was separated from her husband, so more or less a single mom. With 4 kids. 4 boys. Teenagers. 

Carlos: Her children, and this is something that she herself would admit, were not saints as, uh, she says they committed some crimes, uh, petty crimes. They were accused of, you know, just being, in the streets, making trouble, basically just thugging. 

Host: On July 21st, 2001, the Davoa police murdered her son Richard. 

Clarita Alie: October... October 20, 2001 

Host: That same year, on October 20, they murdered Christopher. 

Clarita Alie: November 3  

Host: Then, two years later, on November 3rd, 2003 they murdered Bobby. And then, four years later, they murdered Fernando. 

Carlos: The last one was in 2007. She told me that she tried to be as normal as possible. But what really crushed her in Davao all these years was the way her neighbors treated her. She said that they were accusing me of not being a good mother. They were accusing me that I allowed my children to be what they are. And that was why they were targeted. They weren't questioning why they were being killed to begin with, why they were literally being slaughtered like pigs in the market. It was really difficult. I mean, I have to admit, I was pretty much crying while we were talking. 

Host: Over the years, Carlos has interviewed Clarita Alia many times. Not only because of her tragic story but because Clarita Alia did something very brave... 

Carlos: So, when her children were being killed, one after the other, she spent practically all of her life since then, trying to build up cases for her children. So, she filed complaints before the Commission in Human Rights. She filed complaints with the prosecutors in Davaos city. She filed complaints with the police, but none of it really mattered. In fact, about, the only thing good that came out was that one of the police officers that she said was involved in the murders of one of her children had been demoted. 

Host: Now there's official justice, which Clarita Alia was not getting, and then there's the court of public opinion. At great risk to her own safety Clarita Alia made her case to the public, giving interviews to journalists like Carlos and to anyone willing to listen. 

Carlos: Now I remember what Ms. Aliyah told Reuters in 2006, I think it was when they did a profile on her, and she warned at the time that if Mr. Duterte ever gets elected president, blood will flow in the streets of the Philippines. 

Newsreel/WSJ: Hard line anti-crime mayor Rodrigo Duterte is poised to become the next president of the Phillipines... 

Newsreel/BBC: Millions of people bought into his promises to get tough on crime, to be a man of action, a man to get things done, pointing to his experience down in the city of Davao... 

WSJ: His pledge to kill criminals and end corruption had nationwide appeal. Duterte: Either you kill me or I will kill you... 

BBC: There are others, though, particularly those more concerned about the rule of law, about human rights, who are deeply, deeply alarmed by the kinds of things he's said. 

Host: That alarm apparently didn’t translate into votes. So how did Duterte win over 40% of Filipino voters in 2016 and become president, even with  his well-documented record of extrajudicial killings? Carlos has one explanation... 

Carlos: He projected Davoa as kind of a Singapore in the Philippines. So if you can imagine that the Philippines being a third world, very poor country and then here's, here comes somebody who markets his city as the golden, uh, kind of the, the gold standard in terms of governance. Uh, that was a very attractive proposition for a lot of Filipinos. That's why many believed him. And so, Davao admittedly, was a very efficient city during his time as mayor, but there were a lot of killings. 

He sold the idea that he's going to replicate it across the Philippines, and that's exactly what happened. The problem is that the Philippines did not become Singapore when he became president, uh, because, you know, a lot of killings were happening, a lot of corruption was still happening. 

Uh, rule of law was kind of just, you know, it went down the drain. 

Al Jazeera: It’s been just 16 days since Rodrigo Duterte was sworn in as the 16th President of the Philippines. In that time, thousands of people have been killed in his war on drugs, something he makes no apologies for. 

CNN: Duterte has admitted to personally shooting 3 people he calls criminals. 

France24: In this so called war on drugs, over 7 thousand have been killed... 

Al Jazeera: 5 men killed tonight. 5 more to add to the tally of death in the Philippines. 

ANC24-7: Was the war truly aimed at dismantling the drug syndicates, or was it an all out assault on the poor? 

Host: Imagine you're a journalist in this situation. Your country has elected a man who openly brags about all the "criminals" he's killed in the city where he was mayor. As president, he keeps killing, but now on a national scale. You report on all this extra-judicial killing, and that president, he doesn't like what you're doing. What do you, as a journalist, do? 

Maria: I mean, you, you just keep going. You have to hold onto the facts regardless. 'cause the first attempt was to intimidate journalists. 

Host: This again is Maria Ressa. Maria had spent nearly two decades working as a lead investigative reporter for CNN and was for a time CNN's bureau chief in Manila. She'd also headed the news division of ABS-CBN, the Philipine's largest broadcast news service. In 2011, she co-founded Rappler, a news website. I wanted to know, what was Rappler's approach when it came to Duterte's drug war? 

Maria: What we did was we watched the numbers. So, the Philippine National Police by the end of 2016, had a death toll that was over 7,000. But by the beginning of 2017, they just rolled it back to 2000 something. 

Host: In other words, in the first year of Duterte's presidency, the government admitted it had killed 7000 people, but then they said, no, got it wrong, that number is now 2000. 

Maria: And they expected every media group to follow and. What we did, which got us targeted was we maintained and showed when it was rolled back, and showed how much further it was rolled back. The first casualty in the Philippines battle for facts is the exact number of people killed in this brutal drug war, right? 

Host: As Maria said, she, and Rappler, were targeted by Duterte. She was even arrested for "cyberlibel" and has spent a lot of time and money fending off other politically motivated charges. 

Maria: I would wake up and at times , president Duterte would've like, he, he does a, like a midnight press conference and I'd wake up to the attacks that he had when a president of a country attacks one person This is asymmetrical warfare. 

When the president of the country lies repeatedly that lie seeps into public consciousness. Yeah. Right. So what's our role? Our role is our responsibility to the public Good. It's always been facts. Facts have never been debated. The reason they are is because of technology. 

Host: When you talk to Maria Ressa about Duterte and other authoritarian leaders, this is something she keeps coming back to. Technology... and by technology she means social media and the algorithms that govern it... technology is destroying the shared reality that good journalism tries to create. You know, facts. You can do the most accurate journalism in the world, but that doesn't mean it's going to make it into people's minds. Because, says Maria Ressa, it has to compete with massive quantities of disinformation. 

Maria: In 2016, Duterte was elected., Brexit happened , by November, Donald Trump had his first term in office, and in each one of these, there was data that showed insidious manipulation. Election interference on social media. Technology, social media enabled the rise of these populist authoritarians. 

Host: So for Maria Ressa and other journalists, for Carlos Conde and other human rights investigators, for Clarita Alia and the families of victims trying to get the truth about what was happening in the Philippines and hold Duterte accountable, it was an uphill battle. It may have even looked hopeless. Yet now, Duterte is in the Hague awaiting trial. How that happened, after the break. 

[ad break] 

Host: The International Criminal Court or ICC is in the Netherlands, in a city called The Hague. Earlier this year we did a whole episode about the ICC, with one of the lawyers who was there in Rome at its birth back in the 1990s. 

Richard: Well, I'm an old guy.  

Host: Richard Dicker is the founder of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. What I learned about the ICC from Richard includes a few things that help explain how and why Duterte was arrested. 

One: The ICC only investigates only four crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. 

Richard: For example, crimes against humanity, uh, murder on a widespread or systematic basis carried out against a civilian population as a result of a state or organization policy. 

Host: Two: The ICC is a court of last resort. 

Richard: when these crimes happen in a country, 

Ngofeen: Genocide. 

Richard: Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, when those crimes take place, it really is, first and foremost, the responsibility of the state in place to investigate and prosecute those, deemed to be responsible, all right? Court of last resort. They don't just step in and start investigating and prosecuting. They only do that if the national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so. 

Host: The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction everywhere. For example, the U.S. and some other major countries never signed on to the treaty, significantly limiting the court’s reach. Listen to that episode if you want to hear more about that. In any case, the Philippines signed the treaty in 2011, before Duterte was president. And in 2018, Duterte took the Philippines out of the ICC, a decision that officially took effect in 2019, and the court now has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Philippines up to then. 

Vignoli: He is charged with the alleged crimes against humanity of murder, between. 2011 and 2019. 

Host: This is Maria Elena Vignoli,  a senior counsel in the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch... 

Vignoli: Where I focus mostly on the international criminal court. 

Host: So, what exactly happened on March 11?  

Vignoli: Duterte was arrested by the Philippines authorities on this arrest, warrants by the ICC, uh, that was then sent to, to Interpol. He was arrested in, uh, in Manila at, at the airport. 

Host: Duterte was coming back to Manila from Hong Kong, where he appeared at a rally. But let me unpack what Maria Elena Vignoli just said. The ICC issued an arrest warrant and sent it to Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization. Interpol doesn’t have police officers and it doesn’t make arrests, but it does share information on wanted persons with its 195 member countries. It was Interpol that asked for cooperation from Filipino authorities to make the arrest. 

Vignoli: And, uh, it was a very tense moment because he was, uh, first arrested and, and detained there at the airport. 

And then for a while everyone was watching and monitoring, and no one was a hundred percent sure whether he was gonna be put on a plane, and then was the plane going to leave?  

Host: Duterte had landed in Manila around 9:30 a.m...  

Vignoli: ...and then eventually at, uh, around 11:00 PM an aircraft that, , was carrying, , Deterte left Manila Airport for the Hague. 

Host: The important thing to remember here is that the Philippines was no longer a member of the ICC. So why did Filipino authorities make the arrest? Politics, says Carlos Conde... 

Carlos: You have to keep in mind, Ngofeen, that this is something that has never happened in the Philippines before. Mr. Duterte still, is very popular, extremely popular. Uh, and for the, six years he was in office, he kind of cultivated this image that he was untouchable, that the government is afraid of him, so it'll never dare do something like this. The problem of course, that he and his daughter, Sara, who's the vice president, had had a falling out with the Marcos family and the administration of President Marcos, they used to be allies. Uh, but they had a falling out a year before, and so this kind of, uh, contributed to that. There was all this confluence of, you know, events that led to this. 

Host: So the current president of the Philippines, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, and the Marcos family were feuding with Duterte and his daughter Sara, who is as we speak the current vice president. And then this arrest warrant arrives. What to do? 

Carlos: Apparently the government was already prepared with, uh, what is essentially, in my view, uh, a well laid out plan or trap to arrest him, um, with, uh, kind of explicit, uh, rationale that this was in compliance with, uh, uh, uh, arrest warrant issued, not by the ICC directly, but by the Interpol. 

Because keep in mind, Ngofeen, that the Marco administration did not want to recognize the international criminal court because we are already out of, uh, the ICC. So they were very careful in the language. 

Before all of this, the Philippine government was very adamant in their position that they were not going to cooperate with ICC, um, that they did not recognize the ICC. 

So when the arrest happened by the Interpol, it was like, you know, total shock for everybody because we didn't expect this to happen this quickly. 

And I was monitoring all of this from, uh, uh, from my place, you know, glued to the TV and the radio and just watching the things unfold. 

Vignoli: I mean, I was stunned to be honest. The significance of his arrest is, is massive. Well, first and foremost for, you know, for the Philippines, the struggle to bring to justice, you know, perpetrators of the drug war. 

Uh, it's really been a long, uh, a long struggle. 

Maria: I think the best part about the Philippines is that we continued and succeeded. The families didn't give up. The journalists kept working, human rights groups kept working, right? I think the signal it sent on March 11 is that impunity ends. That you can at some point feel a sense of justice. To see Rodrigo Duterte arrested for alleged crimes against humanity, the first Filipino president to have ever been charged with this, and then to see him at the Hague now awaiting trial, just that alone is the first step to giving some sense of justice. 

Host: For Clarita Alia, the news of Duterte's arrest was bittersweet. 

Carlos: The, the murder of her children are not part of the Crimes Against Humanity case in the ICC because they occurred when the country was still not part of the ICC. She was really sad, but also very happy. She told me that this was happening because she had been fighting for this from the very beginning, since 2001. And this is from my perspective as his human rights watch researcher, this is pretty much the best piece of news that has ever happened to this country since Mr. Duterte became president in 2016, 

Vignoli: The case against Duterte seeing him in the Hague really shows the importance of the ICC as a court of last resort, a court that stands for equality before the law and, and really has the potential to reach even those like Duterte that, um, you know, themselves think to be, uh, untouchable. 

Host: Duterte is now sitting in jail in the Hague. In late September there’ll be a hearing to decide whether or not to confirm the charges against him and send him to trial. There’s still a long way to go. 

Meanwhile, the ICC has outstanding arrest warrants against a number of other individuals, including powerful leaders like Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. What message does Duterte’s case send them?... 

Vignoli: I mean to individuals wanted any individual wanted by the court, it really sends this message, this warning message, that one day they too may face justice. The machinery of international justice may take time and, and they may think of themselves as untouchable, as beyond the reach of the law, but it's, it's a warning sign for them. That they too may, may find themselves on the docket. 

Host: You can read a lot more about the arrest of Rodrigo Duterte and the drug war in the Philippines on Human Rights Watch’s website. The archival clips in this episode are from Deutsche Welle, BBC, the Wall Street Journal, ABS-CBN, Minda News, 60 Minutes Australia, Al Jazeera, CNN, France 24, and ANC24-7. 

You’ve been listening to Rights & Wrongs from Human Rights Watch. This episode was produced by me and Curtis Fox. Sophie Soloway is the associate producer. Ifé Fatunase and Stacy Sullivan are the executive producers. Thanks also to Anthony Gale.  

I’m Ngofeen Mputubwele. I’ll be back with another episode in two weeks. Thanks for listening! 

Host: Guess which authoritarian leader we're talking about! 

Clue number one: he led his country for four years before being voted out of office. 

SFX: ding 

Host: Clue number two! A few years later, he was was re-elected. 

SFX: ding ding 

Host: Clue number three! Back in power, he went after the following groups: migrants and asylum seekers, courts, LGBTQ people, non-profits, universities, the media. 

SFX: ding ding ding 

Host: OK, I’m not calling on you because you are wrong. Here are some more clues: he is very critical of the European Union. To keep migrants and asylum seekers out, he built a fence on the southern border of his country. Also, he got supermajorities in the legislature and... changed the Constitution... 15 times! 

Archival/EuroNews/3-15-2024: [in Hungarian] We know which gate to march through and how to reorganise the European Union. . . 

Host: Ding Ding Ding Ding! For those of you who don't happen to speak Hungarian, the answer is... Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Orbán has been in power since 2010. That's fifteen straight years in a country where they have actual elections! In the process he has vilified migrants, asylum seekers and gay people, gained almost complete control over the media, buddied up to Vladimir Putin, and become a darling of the international far right.  

Archival/Fox News/8-5-21: {Carlson} Why did you take a different position on migration from other European countries? 

Host: That's Tucker Carlson…. 

{Orban} That was the only reasonable behavior . . . 

Host: …interviewing Orban, back when Carlson was still employed at Fox News. 

Archival/Fox News/8-5-21: {Orban} What is going on here is building up a society, which is very successful. 

Host: In recent years, with the rise of right wing parties in Europe and elsewhere, Orbán's star has risen. He has become a model for authoritarians around the world. So who is Viktor Orbán? How did he get into power? And how has he lasted so long in power?  

This is Rights & Wrongs, a podcast from Human Rights Watch. I'm Ngofeen Mputubwele. I am a writer, a lawyer, and a radio producer. Human Rights Watch asked me to look at human rights hotspots around the world through the eyes and ears of people on the front lines of history. 

This week, one authoritarian's playbook. 

Ngofeen: First question: how do I pronounce your name correctly? 

Stefania: So it's Stefania. 

Ngofeen: Stefania 

Stefania: Yes, but if you call me Stefia or Steffie, that's also great. 

Ngofeen: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. But I know how it goes and it's like not your actual name, but you're fine with it. But like, we wanna try, we wanna try at least. And then, and then how do I say your last name? 

Stefania: That's tricky. Kopronczay. 

Ngofeen: Kapronczay 

Stefania: Yes. That was really good. Wow. Very impressive. [Laughter.] 

Host: Stefania Kapronczay is from Hungary, a country where the names are not as difficult to pronounce as you might think. My people come from the Democratic Republic of Congo and the my name is a challenge for a lot of people. Even the co-producer of this podcast, Curtis Fox, who I’ve been working with for well over a year[!], has yet to master it… 

Fox: [practicing Mbutubwele, Ngofeen Mbutubwele, fade under.] 

Host: …one day he’ll get it… In any case! Stefania is a lawyer and civil rights defender. Until recently she was the director of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. At the moment she’s a visiting scholar at Columbia University in New York City. I wanted to talk to Stefania about Viktor Orbán because she not only knows the story of how Orbán rose to power, she has also personally felt the sting of his power. 

Stefania:  Uh, I can tell you one story if you want. 

Host: Several years ago a pro-Órban blog published a cartoon caricaturing the Hungarian-born George Soros as the powerbroker behind anti-Hungarian forces.  

 Stefania: And it showed George Soros as holding back some dogs. And, uh, the dogs had human faces and one of the faces was mine. 

[beat] 

Host: Viktor Orbán was born in 1963. Hungary was then part of the communist Eastern Bloc, and still was twenty years later, when Stefania was born, in 1983. Stefania was 5 years old when Orbán made his debut on the national stage. 

Archival/Orban Viktor/1989.06.16: [Orbán being introduced] 

Host: In June of 1989, there was a rally in Heroes Square in Budapest. Huge. Hundreds of thousands of people. One of the speakers was 26-year old Viktor Orbán. 

[Orban 1989 speech in Hungarian, from Viktor Orbán’s YouTube channel] [Orban in Hungarian] My Fellow Citizens! Since the beginning of the Russian occupation and the communist dictatorship 40 years ago ... 

 Stefania: That was a very brave speech because it was before the Soviet Union fell. It was when still Soviet soldiers were on Hungarian ground and he says in the speech that Russians should go home. 

Archival/Orban Viktor: Hungarian people once had an opportunity, once had adequate courage and strength to attempt to reach the objectives articulated in 1848: national independence and political freedom. To this day our goals have not changed, today we still have not relented on ’48, just as we have not relented on ’56 either. 

 Stefania: And it is a very powerful speech. You feel the political charisma shining through that speech. And that is very important because he was definitely voicing a common sentiment among many Hungarians. Especially because if we look at what freedom meant, uh, in the early years of the change of the system, it was very much freedom from Russia, freedom from the Soviet Union. 

[bell ringing from video of proclamation of republic ] 

Host: On October 23, 1989... now just a few weeks before the Berlin Wall finally came down… the acting president officially proclaimed the Republic of Hungary...  

[sounds of speech] 

Viki: I was there, uh, in front of Parliament, age nine when the Republic of Hungary was announced. 

Host: ...this is Viki.... 

Viki: Actually I was talking to one of my classmates because of course I was only nine and I had no idea what was so important about this event, but they were like two adults, hushing, like, please stay quiet because this is something really solemn and important. 

Host: "Viktória Serdült" grew up to become a journalist, and the republic that was formed that day would be part of her beat. Viki didn't know it at the time, but the young man who would come to dominate Hungarian politics was busy turning the youth movement he was involved in into a political force. It was called Fidesz, which translates as “allliance of young democrats.” 

Viki: And they were mostly liberals and some conservatives probably, but Fidesz at that time, that later it became a party around 1990 that was considered a liberal party, and Orban was one of the leaders of this party. 

Host: ...and this party got the attention of George Soros, the same philanthropist that Orbán would later demonize…  

Viki: He gave them a lot of money because it was a young, uh, youth movement in Hungary and that was something that should be supported by the Soros Foundation . So not only did he pay for Orban’s scholarship in Oxford. But he also bought, like, photocopy machines for Fidesz in their offices. 

Host: Viki says that the idea that Orbán was a progressive or liberal in his youth doesn't quite ring fully true to her. 

Viki: My idea is that Orban, well of course he was a liberal in a sense of being a young person in the nineties in Hungary, and his Fidesz movement was also a liberal party, but he himself he, he had the tendency to lead and he had the tendency to rule over other members of the, of his party, if you know what I mean. He has always been more conservative. That of course, grew as he grew older as a politician. 

Host: The first democratically elected government in 1990 was conservative. It didn't include Fidesz in its coalition, because Fidesz was then a liberal party. By the election in 1994, Fidesz was on the cusp of victory. But a financial scandal sapped their popularity and they got 6% of the vote.  

Orbán had begun reorienting Fidesz from a youthful liberal party to a conservative party. As one Hungarian told me, you could see it happening. One day Orbán and Fidesz, they’re wearing jeans and sweatshirts on TV, and the next day it’s suits and ties.  

[beat] 

In talking with Hungarians about Orbán’s rise, I kept hearing about a divide in Hungarian society… between people in the capital, Budapest, and everyone else, like Orbán, who come from rural areas or small towns. From what I learned, this divide is stark, and Orbán keenly felt it. As did Stefania… 

Stefania:  I was born in Budapest, but uh, in the suburbs and to parents who were not from Budapest, who came to Budapest, and when I started going to law school, that was basically my first time when I went downtown in Budapest. And I met all these people around me who, uh, through their connections, through the long history of their family, somehow understood how things work much better than I do. And I, I felt that I am not knowledgeable enough and I don't have as much power. Uh, I don't have the networks as they do. So, this is something that I can also attest to. 

Host: To explain Orban’s political ambition, a number of Hungarian commentators have attributed it, at least in part, to Orban’s resentment of elites in Budapest. And his turn from liberal to conservative, Stefania says, was, at least in part, opportunistic…  

Stefania:   Orban and the leadership of Fidesz understood, uh, that the Hungarian society holds conservative values. And I believe that, power and, being elected was just simply more important than the values, on which, this party was founded on. 

Host: Orbán reorganized this new conservative Fidesz from a loosely governed collective into a top-down hierarchical political party, with Orbán on top.  

And… it worked. In the 1998 elections Fidesz won a plurality. They formed a coalition government, and Orbán, aged 35, became prime minister. Under his leadership Hungary joined NATO, and even took steps towards membership in the European Union. Yet, as Stefania says, for those who cared to look, there were signs of his future authoritarian bent…  

Stefania:  Already, journalists and human rights defenders were saying that they can see how he started already reshaping the legal system in a way that, there are fewer checks and balances on power. 

Host: Orbán governed as a conservative, yet it doesn’t quite take. In 2002, there are elections, and this time, he loses! …to the Socialists. Back to Viktória Serdült… 

Viki: There's a persistent rumor about Orban, which I cannot really prove. But, but I will tell you to you, that Órban mostly blamed the leftist media for his loss in 2002. So the rumor has it that he said that when he comes back to power in, uh, whenever that should be the first thing that he will do is control the media. 

Host: As Viki said, that's just a rumor, but it’s borne out by what he actually does when he regains power in 2010. In any case, according to Stefania, Orbán uses his defeat to polarize the country… 

 Stefania: Orbán is a big football fan or soccer fan. There are two teams. You have to choose a team, like which team you are on, and it kind of translates into his politics as well that you are either with us or against us. There is no in-between. There is, if you're criticizing us, you cannot be standing for Hungary. And that's why I and some of my, a lot of my colleagues were characterized as traitors. 

Host: After the defeat in 2002, Orbán and Fidesz rebuilt their support.  

Stephania: He organized civic circles, basically more like cultural, local organizations, that focus very much on religious conservative values. Also, uh, organizing activities like, uh, hiking together, cooking together, celebrating religious events together. These became very important in driving the vote. 

Host: But! Órban and Fidesz lost again to the socialists in 2006. People were pretty content with that status quo. 

 Stefania: It was seen that the country is doing well, that, uh, the governing coalition is driving economic development. People are doing better. We just joined the European Union in 2004. That was a very important milestone. Um, so there was, I think, a general optimism about how the things were. 

Host: That optimism? It doesn’t last.  

Ngofeen:  In 2010 he gets reelected. Why? 

Stefania: Um, a big reason is, uh, the 2008 economic crisis that also hit Hungary. Another big reason is the very widespread and obvious corruption and incompetence of the government that was in power between 2002 and 2010. 

Host: Stefania also says that, one of the deeper reasons for Orbán’s appeal has to do with the Hungarian public’s attitude toward democracy… 

 Stefania: According to a 1989 survey, Hungarians expected three things from the change of the system, freedom, political participation, and economic prosperity, and less economic inequality. And actually the change of the system, the transition to democracy didn't deliver on the economic equality part, and this really contributed to the disillusionment in democratic institutions. And Victor Orban, he very much understands this dynamic. I think besides, um, his will to grab power, his political charisma, we also have to notice that he knows the Hungarian people of Psyche very, very much. 

Host: Democracy. Didn’t. Deliver. Coming up, we’ll hear what Orbán delivered on his return to power. 

[HRW/Zama ad break] 

Host: We're back. And we're back in 2010.  

Viki: in 2010 when he came to power for the second time, we didn't really see what was coming. 

Host: By this time Viki is working as a journalist. 

Viki: In 2010 when he came to power, I think most of the country was like expecting quite a peaceful and like prospering time for Hungary. 

Host: But not everyone. By this time Stefania was working for the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union or HCLU… 

Stefania:  So after the election, I started hearing from my colleagues, my parents, you know, these people who were around, in the 1990s, that, , they fear what the Orban government will bring, that there will be a centralization of power, checks and balances will be demolished. 

Viki: The key to 2010 is super majority. Two thirds of the seats in parliament and that power gives you the possibility to change basically any law and even the constitution. 

And he knew this and he like started it right away. 

Host: With that supermajority in Parliament, Fidesz and Orban wrote an entirely new constitution. It’s not even called a Constitution anymore. It’s called Fundamental Law. 

Viki: this document has been modified 15 times in the last 10 years. So anything they wanna reach politically, they write it in the Constitution, and from there onwards, nobody can change the law. 

 Stefania:  So the Constitution for Orban is not something that all Hungarians agree on and something that might today limit this government's power. But it's more a political instrument that can be changed on a whim. 

Host: There’s a lot of talk these days about the “authoritarian playbook.” What wannabe authoritarians do to dismantle a democratic system and assume total control over a government. Every country is different of course, but what Orbán did in Hungary has come to be seen as a kind model for the extreme right in Europe and around the world. And as a cautionary tale for those who care about corruption, civil society, human rights and democracy. 

Stefania:  So the first Orban term, 2010 2014, is about restructuring the legal system. It's about making sure that there is no institution that can serve as a check on government's power. It's about seizing the constitutional court. 

Host: He also starts increasing control of the lower courts. With its supermajority in Parliament, Fidesz lower the retirement age for judges, forcing hundreds of them out, and replacing them with party loyalists… 

Stefania:  Second term is very much about silencing criticism. So to make sure that the media is essentially, most of the media is essentially controlled by the government, and the independent media is pushed to the corner, 

Host: By 2016 about 90% of media outlets are owned by Orbán allies, or by people allied with Fidesz. As one Hungarian journalist told me, in rural areas most people don’t have money to pay for cable TV, so all they see are channels the government controls. Same for radio. For print and internet media, the screws are tightening… 

Viki: For me personally, I used to work at several, newspaper outlets during my career and many of these outlets were either, taken over by the government or they were like, basically shut down. So I think for the first time that for me, uh, that was more personal because there was a very, very, uh, famous paper in Hungary called Népszabadság.  

And I was not working there, but many of my friends were. And that was like basically shot down from one day to the other. So that is when I felt that I think something's not right. 

Host: Viki has been working as a journalist, in Hungary, for 21 years. Currently she's writing for the website of a magazine, and she focuses on Hungarian politics, society, and the EU. So, there's still enough of a free press in Hungary for at least a few real journalists to earn their living. But just recently Orbán targeted pretty much any organization critical of the government with legislation that would restrict or even shut them down if they receive foreign funding, which independent media organizations do. 

Viki: Uh, if you can, you can shut down a newspaper, from a Tuesday to a Wednesday, something's not right in that country. 

[beat] 

Host: So: control of the constitution, check. Co-opting the legal system, check. Dominating news media, check. We didn’t get into this, but government oversight of higher education, check, check, check. What else is in Orban’s authoritarian playbook? 

Stefania:  We, we can see a lot of hate campaigns, scapegoating, first migrants, then civil society, then, LGBTQ, Hungarians, for whatever is wrong, uh, with the country, uh, and using this hate as to drive out the vote. 

Host: And it works. Orban is re-elected in 2014, in 2018, and again, with its highest percentage of votes ever, in 2022. For Stefania, it goes back to Hungarian democracy not living up to its promise of economic equality… 

Stefania: … And this really contributed to the disillusionment in democratic institutions to the level that in, uh, 2015, 30% of the Hungarian population, according to a survey, uh, thought that it doesn't matter if we live in a democracy or a dictatorship.  

After the change of the system, there was this joke among, uh, Hungarians that it was not really a change of system, but a change in gangsters. Meaning that what we really changed is who are on top and, uh, in Órban's politics, this is something that you can really see that he's responding to this feeling among, uh, Hungarians that uh, they are not better off than their parents were. 

Viki: I don't think that the majority of Hungarians noticed what was happening. And also it's very important to mention at this point that, Fidesz and all these politicians, it's basically a party of lawyers. Like Órban himself is a lawyer. Many of the politicians are lawyers. Uh, mostly the top level politicians are. 

So they knew how to do this legally. So everything that Fides did was done legally. Now, of course, sometimes they had to change the laws to make these actions legal, but you can't really say that they did anything illegally. 

Host: Yet somehow, legally or otherwise, Orbán and his circle of friends, the young men who came up with him in the 1990s, have struck it rich... 

Viki: Well imagine as as a prime minister, his monthly salary is 5 million forints, 

Ngofeen: That’s about 13,800 USD or 12,200 Euros a month. 

Viki: 5 million forints is quite a big amount in Hungary, but it's not overly rich. And with that 5 million forints, he still has like a huge mansion in the countryside of Hungary 

Host: That mansion? His dad owns it, technically. 

Viki: And all his family members are mega-rich. 

And his best friend from elementary school, he is now the wealthiest person in Hungary, and he is even on the US edition of the Forbes richest people in the world list.  

Host: Historically, corruption has been the Achilles heel for authoritarian regimes. At some point, people get fed up with the self-dealing, the ostentatious displays of ill-gotten wealth, the cronyism. But Stefania notes that Orbán and Fidesz have partially inoculated themselves by carefully crafting an anti-corruption image… 

Stefania:  Fidesz went after everyday bribery, small scale corruption early on. So the bribe that you would have to pay for to the police officer or the so-called gratuity money that was expected in the healthcare system, they legislated against it. Prosecutors went against it, and it became a much more rare occurrence. At the same time, u bigger scale, corruption was taken into another level. It's called inverted state capture that is happening in Hungary. So there is a very strong state, state, and if you wanna do business, you have to have really close ties to the government, especially above a certain level of business. 

Host: High level corruption is also harder to see and understand, especially when the news media is not covering it. Also, says Stefania, public cynicism plays a role here. 

 Stefania: Most of the Hungarians hold the belief that everyone is corrupt. This is just kind of the nature of the things. So we cannot really change it. 

Host: According to Transparency International, Hungary is the most corrupt country in the EU. It is also ranked as one of the poorest. In recent years, about a million people, many of them young, have picked up and left Hungary. That’s out of a population of only 10 million. So 10% of the people: gone.  

So what does it feel like to live in a country where democracy is on life support… after 15 years of authoritarian drift?  

Stefania:  So if you live your life in Hungary, there's huge difference If you live in Budapest, which is the capital big city with 2 million inhabitants, because you can see rainbow flags on some buildings, and you can see people who are, dining out in restaurants and people speak fairly and fairly often, there is, um, there is a demonstration that you encounter. And, um, quite a lot of people speak about politics. People read online newspapers. Uh, as you go outside of Budapest and you are approaching smaller cities and even more rural, I think the first thing that you notice is the silence about politics and a lot of people lowering their voice. You also notice there is a very low trust in institutions that the state, local government, the state agencies, all the healthcare system we are deliver. And at the same time, as you talk to people, you also sense that they don't feel that they have any power in changing that.  

Host: Yet in 2025, after 15 years of Orbán, change seems to be in the air. Maybe because of the corruption, the brain drain, the poverty, Orbán is now facing some serious political competition… 

Viki: in the last year, there is a figure in Hungary who, who rose to prominence. His name is Peter Major and he's, uh, very funnily, he's an ex Fidesz member. He's a Fidesz insider, and he used to work for Orban and his system. What he says is that he had enough of what Orban was doing, and he had enough of these riches that his, his friends are having and the direction where the country is heading. So he founded his own party. And even though it's sort of a right wing, conservative party, it has become so popular in the last year. Now according to some opinion polls, he is ahead of Orban in the poll. So for the first time in many years, there is actually a real challenger for Orban. 

Host: Elections are scheduled for 2026. But given all that we’ve heard, it just begs the question… 

Ngofeen: Is Hungary still a democracy? 

Viki: It's certainly not a dictatorship. Uh, but I would like describe Hungary, with Orban's own words. It's an illiberal democracy, so in theory it is a democracy. We have free elections. We do have free press. I'm working at hvg.hu, which is supposed to be independent media, but the state capture of so many institutions, the state capture of universities ministries civil society. The press is, is at such a high level that I would say that democracy is in danger if we continue in the same direction. 

Host: You can read more about human rights in Viktor Orban’s Hungary on Human Rights Watch’s website hwr dot org. The archival clips in this episode are from Viktor Orbán’s YouTube page, Fox news and Euro News. 

You’ve been listening to Rights & Wrongs from Human Rights Watch. This episode was produced by me and Curtis Fox. Our associate producer is Sophie Soloway. Ifé Fatunase and Stacy Sullivan are the executive producers. Thanks also to Anthony Gale.  

I’m Ngofeen Mputubwele. I’ll be back with another episode in two weeks. Thanks for listening! 

Ngofeen Mputubwle: Pretend we're with you there and our eyes are closed. What are we gonna hear? 

Elizabeth Kamundia: Hmm. So it's, it's like k-ching k-ching ching and it's, um... You have to first imagine the smell of it, right. Often they're tied four people to a pole. 

Kriti Sharma: Apart from, you know, someone giving you food off and on, you can be exposed to the elements outside sun, rain, storms... 

Kamundia: It's a combined space that is also the toilet. So just the smell of it is suffocating. They go weeks without a shower. 

Kriti: They can also have their muscles atrophy, which means the muscle separates from the bone because it's not being used. 

Kamundia: So even the sound of chains sometimes is not a sound that you hear because so restrained are the people in these spaces. 

Kriti: They can't stand up, walk, move around because they're constantly in one position. 

Kamundia: And then sometimes, of course, in other places you will hear people walking and it's ching, K- ching, K-ching. 

Host: That's what it sounds like. That's what it smells like. But when you see images of human bodies in these conditions, chained to poles, locked into tiny rooms, it looks like . . . a manmade hell. It's called shackling, and it's done to people with mental health conditions. 

Kriti: There's no formal definition for shackling, but it's a very rudimentary form of being tied up. You could be chained with a metallic chain around your ankle to a tree. You could be tied with a rope in a cattle shed, you could be locked up in a chicken coop or even a room within the home. 

Host: Families do it to family members when they feel like there's no better option, institutions do it to people in their care. Shackling takes place all over the world, and it cuts across age, gender, class, ethnicity. It’s often seen as just the way things are done. How did that happen? 

Kamundia: That's such a good question. And I'll answer it with a story. 

Host: Elizabeth Kamundia is the director of the disability rights division at Human Rights Watch. A few years ago, she had just finished a fact-finding mission in Ghana... 

Kamundia: When I was leaving the country and I was going through the passport control and the immigration official asked me, did you have a good time in Ghana? 

And I said, yes. It was amazing. Accra, the food, all of that, except for one thing I said. I said, you shackle people with mental health conditions, you chain them. And he said. Mm. But what can we do? If we don't, they'll run away or they'll harm someone else. In other words, it's a society where this way of treating people is so accepted and so normalized that really it's not that big of a deal. Right? 

And I remember turning to him and saying, yeah, but you know, my father had a mental health condition. 

And surely there are other ways to manage it because we didn't chain him. Right, and we had a moment there of exchange and then, you know, I got my passport and walked away. 

Ngofeen: I love that you're at the end of your trip, you're like, let me talk to the border control person 

Kamundia: Who has nothing to do with shackling, by the way, poor official got a mouthful. 

[ Laughter fade out.] 

Host: That poor official got only a mouthful, but we're going to give you a whole podcast episode! About shackling. Why it exists, why it's a human rights violation and how it can, and is, being defeated. 

This is Rights & Wrongs, a podcast from Human Rights Watch. I'm Ngofeen Mputubwele. I am a writer, a lawyer, and a radio producer. Human Rights Watch asked me to look at human rights hotspots around the world through the eyes and ears of people on the front lines of history. 

This week, break the chains! 

Human Rights Watch first started investigating shackling in 2011, in Ghana. And they quickly realized the practice was not confined to that country. Their next big investigation took place in Indonesia... 

Kriti: We started looking at shackling in Indonesia because we had heard that 57,000 people with mental health conditions had been chained or shackled at least once in their lives. 

Host: This is Kriti Sharma. She works with Elizabeth and is the associate director of the disability rights program at Human Rights Watch. That number she mentioned, 57,000, came from the Indonesian government. Kriti went to investigate in 2014. 

Kriti: It was the first time I visited Indonesia, and I remember traveling for several hours by road from Jakarta, the capital, into a rural area in West Java. We approached the village nearly at dusk. It was getting dark when we reached and I walked up to a house where I had heard someone was being shackled. 

I met a man who said to me, come, I'll take you to meet my son. And he walked across his lawn, uh, to a shed. I couldn't see. It was very dark. And as I approached. I saw a very tiny patched shed, and I couldn't believe somebody could be living inside. I remember peering through a slit. And I saw a man crouched, naked, uh, cramped on the floor. He didn't even have enough space to stretch his legs. And that was how I first met Sodikin. 

Host: Kriti was there to do what Human Rights Watch researchers do: interview people who have been victims of human rights abuses and document their stories. But Sodikin, a man in his 30s, was an unusual interview subject, in that his human rights were in the process of being violated. 

Kriti: There was a single light bulb that illuminated his little shed hanging by a wire. The stench was quite unbearable because, Sodikin unfortunately had been living in that shed for eight years. 

For eight years he urinated, defecated, ate, slept in that tiny area, no larger than maybe two feet by two feet and he couldn't even stand up because his muscles had completely given way. He hadn't been able to do any exercise. He was bathed once in three months. 

When his family realized that he couldn't even stand up anymore, they had to create another hole at the bottom of the shed so they could pass plates of food inside so he could eat. 

When I first saw Sodikin, I remember him looking up at me, but he didn't say anything. I tried through my interpreter to speak to him, but his mother told me that he hadn't spoken in years. He would nod off and on and acknowledge when she passed food. 

He would pass his plate out after he'd finished eating, but he was so traumatized from being shackled that he didn't really speak. 

Host: Sodikin couldn't speak to Kriti, but she did gather from his family the story of how he ended up confined in that shed. 

Kriti: Sodikin was in his thirties when he developed a mental health condition. He had a breakdown and there was, um, a disagreement within the family. He raised his voice. Uh, if I remember correctly, he broke a few things in the house. There was also a lot of pressure from their neighbors. They did take Sodikin to a number of faith healers because they thought that initially it was a supernatural problem that, uh, it could be cured through, um, you know, faith and, uh, spiritual healing. 

But when that didn't work, they felt he had no choice but to keep him in this hut. To shackle him. 

And the father told me that he saw Sodikin as a burden, that he was waiting for him to die. He didn't know what else to do. 

When I left Sodikin's house, I felt. You know, very hopeless. I just thought this is the kind of situation where it is such a rural area. There is no form of any service or support and. 

What else would the family do? And it, it's a case that really haunted me. 

Host: Two years later, Kriti returned to Sodikin's village. 

Kriti: I remember approaching his house and not seeing the shed in the garden and my heart sank. My first thought was, Sodikin must be dead. And you know, I get emotional even thinking about it now because it was just so, I, I just felt desperate, you know, I started walking faster and I almost ran to the kitchen where I saw his sister. 

And I said, Hey, you know, this is, this is Kriti, I don't know if you remember me. And she said, of course I remember you. You had come to see my brother. And I said, well, where is he? Where is Sodikin? And she was beaming. And she said, well, you know, you can go find him in the factory. And I said, what? 

She said, Sodikin is working in a factory stitching school, uniforms for boys, and it's just around the corner. I can take you there. And we walked to the factory and I couldn't recognize him. He had short hair, looking very neat in a crisp shirt and trousers sitting, cutting uniforms, stitching buttons. 

I didn't disturb him for, for a good five minutes 'cause I was just watching him do his work and I couldn't believe this could be the same man. 

Host: This time, Kriti was able to interview Sodikin. 

Sodikin/Indonesian: I am just happy. I am happy now to be able to help my parents. 

Kriti: And he shared how happy he was. That’s something he kept saying. I’m so happy to be working here. I’m finally happy now. 

Sodikin is a man of few words. But his body language says so much. He is very respectful, very dignified, very polite. And you can't imagine that someone like him was then shackled. 

Sodikin doesn't remember his eight years being shackled. It's something he has completely, blocked out and repressed, uh, due to the trauma. He does remember that patch in the lawn where his hut was, his mother told me that he often circles that area walking around, knowing there is some deep connection to it. 

Archival/AFP: [call to prayer] 

Host: After recovering from his eight years of being shackled, Sodikin had become the family's primary breadwinner. He even performed the call to prayer, a sign of prestige in the community. So what had happened to Sodikin in those two years between Kriti's visits, from the time when the family was waiting for him to die, to the time when he was a working and happy member of his community? We'll hear about that, when we come back. 

[HRW ad] 

Host: In 2016, several years after Kriti first met Sodikin, Human Rights Watch and its Indonesian partners, including the Indonesian Mental Health Association, released a report on shackling in Indonesia. It had an effect. The Indonesian health minister committed to ensuring access to mental support and services in every one of the ten thousand primary health centers across the country. Human Rights Watch went back to Indonesia every six months to provide technical support and to make sure the health minister's commitment translated into reality on the ground. The Indonesian government trained community workers to go door to door, asking if someone was shackled there, providing information on disability and mental health, providing referrals if needed, and freeing people from their chains. 

Kriti: That is the program that supported him in rehabilitation for six months, providing counseling and access to medication and, you know, re-socializing him to support him getting over the trauma. 

The moment he came home from the rehabilitation center, he rolled out a mattress in their living room, and he went to sleep on the floor like he did before. 

It was as if those eight years never happened. 

His family told me that once he remembered and he confronted them and he asked his parents, how could you do this to me? How could you do this to your own son, to a family member? How could you treat me like that? And the family broke down and his father and mother both cried. 

And after that it was never mentioned again. 

Kamundia: So when I first went to Ghana, um, in November, 2022 ... 

Host: This is Elizabeth Kamundia again, talking about that trip she took to Ghana that led to her giving a mouthful to that security guard at the airport. 

Kamundia: in the eastern part of Ghana is a prayer camp as they call them, which is attached to a church and essentially is, towards the back of the church, kind of tiny rooms. , and I met a woman I'll call Pamela there, and she was staring out of a hall that was bare, puddles of urine on the floor, a threadbare mattress at her corner, and for windows, it was just kind of metal bars, like a prison. And she was staring out from that space, and I remember walking up to her and trying to have a conversation and, and just kind of understanding that this was her life, this room, 

From what I understood is that she has a mental health condition. They didn't name which, they just said she's “unwell in the mind.” 

Um, and they didn't feel that they could care for her at home and they felt that she needed religious intervention. 

I went back in October of 2023 and she was still there. Just that she was much more skinny. 

Like she was gaunt and her eyes just like, seemed enormous in her face as she'd lost so much weight. And I asked her about life in the camp and she crumpled and just began crying. And she said they wouldn't let me go to church. They do not allow me to go to church, and I remember being astounded because she was in a prayer camp. And I asked the assistant who was with me, one of the staff who worked at this camp, like why, why is this the situation with her? And you know, he just turned to her casually and said, how can I allow you to go to church? You know? And I looked at her and there were feces under her nails and in her hair, and she was in really bad shape. And I thought, she needs care. She needs support. She is in a place where she's being violated. This is not a place of care or support. I just, I, I, I saw her and I thought, oh my goodness. Just nourishing food, water, a cozy bed, what it feels like to be seen as human again, this is, this is what Pamela needs. 

Host: That was the last time Elizabeth saw Pamela. Elizabeth doesn't know if she has received that nourishing food and cozy bed, or the medicines and therapy she so clearly needed. But she does know whose responsibility it is, legally, to provide it. 

Kamundia: When I think about Pamela and what it will take for her to live in the community. It's a responsibility of the state. 

It, it's great if families step in and, and, and support their family members, especially our in you our African context. This is, this would be great, but it remains a state responsibility. And Ghana has ratified the disability treaty that places this obligation on Ghana to, uh, monitor places where people are held and to hold accountable, people who are violating their rights under the guise of cure and treatment. 

Host: The Disability Treaty Elizabeth mentioned – it's more formally known as The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. About 186 countries have signed on to it, and, basically, it legally obliges them to allow for the full participation and inclusion of people with disabilities in their societies. This of course includes people with mental health conditions. 

Human Rights Watch started investigating shackling in Ghana back in 2011. Elizabeth says the Ghanian government has been responsive. Yet there are still far too many Pamelas. 

Kamundia: This is an issue where when we meet with the Deputy Minister for Health, like we did in Ghana in 2023, they're not saying. It's okay. Right? Like it's not one of those issues where there's government officials are like, yeah, well, too much democracy is like ruining young people or whatever. 

No. This is one of those issues where they are agreeing with you. They're like, it's horrendous. There are more than 5,000 of these camps in Ghana. It's awful. We need to do something about it. But when, you know, I remember in one meeting kind of saying to the mental health authority staff that the Mental Health Act gives you the authority to shut these places down. 

And she said to me, yes, but there are thousands of people held in these places. Where will I take them if I shut these places down? 

Host: Elizabeth says it's a complex issue that requires a complex response from the government. Include mental health in your budgets. Fund communit- based mental health services rather than psychiatric hospitals. Integrate mental health care into primary health care. 

Kamundia: When you fund maternal health include maternal mental health because postpartum depression is real. 

It's some, it, it happens to many women, and so include that when you fund HIV, include. Something on mental health, different things need to work well within government to solve this. It is not an impossible situation to solve. 

Host: So far we've talked about cases of shackling in developing countries. But it happens in more developed countries, too, although it's more isolated. Here's Kriti again. 

Kriti: We have found cases in Tokyo where someone was locked in a room, in a flat. In Sweden we found a case where someone had been imprisoned or locked up in a shed in the middle of the woods. 

So it occurs in, in different forms, in different countries. 

Host: Soin the United States, cases of shackling, they’re pretty rare. And when they happen they make the news. Just recently there were sensational reports of man in Connecticut whose stepmother had allegedly locked him in a room for over 20 years, until he started a fire and escaped when the fire department arrived. Where I live, in New York City, there are thousands of people with psychosocial disabilities who fend for themselves on the streets and in the subways. I see it everyday, and, to be honest, it's so common here that you kind of learn how to walk by it without looking too closely. But you kind of have to choose to ignore someone else's misery, and at the very least it's seen as a social problem in need of a political solution. One of the things that has made shackling so difficult to address around the world is that it's usually invisible. It happens out of sight, in institutions or in private homes. And people don't want to talk about it. The stigma around mental health issues is pretty deep. The first step to solving it, say both Elizabeth and Kriti, is naming it. And calling it out for what it is. 

Kamundia: And that's why it continues and continues because it isn't necessarily named as a wrong. And, and, and so naming it as a wrong in the law, of course, is one piece. And then bringing that down to people. The education piece, the anti-stigma piece, the awareness raising piece is the other really important part of this. 

Host: Changing mindsets changes behavior. Kriti has a story about this from when she first started to get interested in human rights. It's not about shackling, it's about another seemingly intractable problem... 

Kriti: I traveled to Senegal when I was 19 to do an internship and I remember I was interviewing a man on domestic violence and forced marriage in a little village on the border of Mauritania. 

And he had started doing a program, learning about human rights. And he told me that when he understood that the constitution of his country ensured rights for women. He stopped beating his wife, and I couldn't believe that, you know, I thought he's just saying that because he thinks that's what I want to hear. 

But when I spoke to his wife later, she said that, you know, all their married life, he had beaten her. And just one day abruptly, he stopped. And it was because, you know, he thought that was the role of a man in a marriage. That if the woman is out of line in any way that she would, she must be beaten. 

And I thought that was really powerful, that just by knowing and learning that someone has human rights, you can change behavior. 

Kamundia: You change minds and you change hearts, and you get people to think about it in a, in a different way. But you won't, as long as the narrative is that there are some spirits where unless you chain them, they will not leave the person. Right. Like, 'cause these are the kind of narratives that are there, and so there's something very powerful in saying, no, actually this is torture. No, actually this is a human rights violation. No, it is not treatment. There's something very powerful to, to doing that. 

Host: So from what I gathered from Elizabeth and Kriti, here is the recipe for ending the scourge of shackling. Name it for what it is: a cruel human rights violation; educate governments and their people about it; make and enforce laws against it; and provide community-based services, including mental health support. 

Kriti: All you have to do is look at examples of people like Sodikin. Once they receive the support they need, they can live like everybody else: having a job, looking after their families, , having, , community roles. And it's really not that much that the government needs to do 

Host: In the past decade the rates for shackling in Ghana and Indonesia have plummeted. Yet there has been some backsliding, even for success stories like Sodikin... 

Kriti: When the pandemic hit in 2020, this program was one of the first to be cut. This meant that people like Sodikin did not have access to that support overnight. And in Sodikin’s case, it led to a deterioration of his mental health. 

He was then shackled once again by the family, and he lived in the same inhumane conditions that he had once before. 

Host: Government services were eventually restored, and the organization that helped Sodikin before helped him again. They came to the family home and convinced his parents to let him come to the rehabilitation center in the village, where he remains to this day. 

Kriti: It was, you know, a mutual decision almost for him to stay in the rehabilitation center. But I would say that it was tough for him to then have to leave the family home once again. 

Host: Last word, from Elizabeth, who has a way of stripping down a complex social problem to its moral core. 

Kamundia: It feels to me in some ways really basic because it's asking to be a human being among other human beings in society. This is it to be, to belong, to be, to be part of all of us, right? Like part of what life is, the good, the bad, all of it. 

Host: Elizabeth Kamundia is director of the disability rights program at Human Rights Watch. Kriti Sharma is associate director. You can read more about shackling at hrw.org. 

You’ve been listening to Rights and Wrongs, from Human Rights Watch. This episode was produced by me and Curtis Fox. Our associate producer is Sophie Soloway. Our executive producers are Ifé Fatunase and Stacy Sullivan. Thanks also to Anthony Gale.  

Please let others know about this podcast, y’all! Tell your friends and family, post about it on social media, leave a review in your podcast app. Our goal as you know is one billion listeners, and we will NOT rest until... well, we’ll probably rest when we get to 100 million. 

I’m Ngofeen Mputubwele. Talk to you again in two weeks. 

HOST: Congo. 

Papa: Just a question. Can you hear me? 

Ngofeen: Yes. 

Papa: What are you expecting when you say introduce yourself? Just the name? 

Ngofeen: Just however you want to be known.  

Host: We have some very special guests this week. I don’t know if you can tell from my tone, but I’m talking to the people who birthed me.  

Papa: My name is Makim Mputubwele. I’m a retired associate professor of Lane College in Jackson, Tennessee. /  

I’m from the Congo. 

Mama: Alright, my name is Mulata Moba. I am from the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am a mother, a wife, and I am a retired counselor for a mental health agency. 

Host: There’s some news coming out of the Democratic Republic of Congo these days. 

Mama: People that I know will ask… we heard that they killed folks. Is your family okay? Are they near where this is happening? And I say no, but they are my folks.  

‘Well, thank God it’s not your family.’ No, those are my family. You think of everything that is happening over there, but you can’t explain it to the people. 

Host: Since January, the Rwandan army and an armed group that they fund and support called M23 have captured two major cities in Congo….  

And the fighting between, on the one hand, Rwandan forces + M23, and on the other hand… the Congolese army and the armed groups it’s allied itself with… it’s endangering ordinary people. Soldiers killing, raping civilians caught in the crossfire.  

Y’know… light fare. 

Ngofeen: How do you feel right now about what’s going on in the Congo? 

Mama: Very sad. It’s not really – it's more than that. I’m mad. May I use I’m pissed? I can use that?  

Ngofeen: Yeah you can use that. 

Mama: Well you’re going to edit it anyway. 

Host: While this particular manifestation of the war is recent, it’s inseparable from the armed conflicts in the country that’s been going on for the past 30 years involving many African nations that have resulted in some six million deaths.  

Papa: I feel angry, mad, frustrated, impatient, and I can go on and on and on, but I’m going to explain one thing. It’s that this has been going on for over three decades. And nobody in the world – excuse me the word - gives a damn. Nobody cares. And compare to the situation that’s going on, that started 2 or 3 years ago with Ukraine, where the entire world was mobilized just for that. And you see the Congo, the number of people killed directly or indirectly, you can’t imagine. I saw pictures where people are being butchered like animals and they don’t care. 

Host: This is Rights & Wrongs, a podcast from Human Rights Watch. I'm Ngofeen Mputubwele. I am a writer, a lawyer, and a radio producer. Human Rights Watch asked me to look at human rights hotspots around the world through the eyes and ears of people on the front lines of history. 

On this episode, what’s going on in Congo, how did we get here, and how does it reframe what we all think about modern life?  

If you’re trying to understand the Congo, there’s a good chance you already have a great reference point for understanding.  

You remember Black Panther? If you didn’t see it, you’ve probably heard of… Wakanda… 

Archival/Disney/2018: Wakanda forever! 

Well, in the land of Wakanda, there was this really important and very rare metal. 

Archival/Disney/2018: It was taken by British soldiers in Benin, but it’s from Wakanda. And it’s made out of Vibranium… 

Archival/Disney/2018: You’re not telling me that’s vibranium too … 

Archival/Disney/2018: ... vibranium … 

Archival/Disney/2018: … vibranium … 

Host: Vibranium. It’s this fictional precious metal, found only in Wakanda that all of the superheroes and villains fight over. Superheroes need it to do their superhero stuff. A lot of people want it… 

And turns out: vibranium is real — except it’s not one fictional mineral. It’s several very real minerals. Congo is absolutely central to modern life. It's the engine behind the most pivotal moment in the 20th century - WWII (most of the uranium powering the atomic bomb was Congolese) and Congo is the quiet backbone of modern conversations about climate change, renewable energy, whether the internet, social media, smart phones – whether all of that is sustainable. In a way to me it’s the crucible of modern life. And vibranium today, it’s a lot of minerals. 

Lewis:  a lot of gold, a lot of, a lot of coltan, a lot of cobalt. A lot of minerals. The three Ts.  

Host: That’s Lewis Mudge. He is the Associate Africa Director at Human Rights Watch. In May last year, the M23 seized control of the Rubaya mine, one of the world's largest deposits of coltan. 

Lewis: They're carving out roads from Rubya straight into Rwanda. 

Host: And cobalt goes into almost every single electric car being produced on the planet.  

Archival/Tesla: I heard a question raised about cobalt mining and you know what? We will do a third-party audit.  

Host: Hence, Elon Musk: 

Archival/Tesla: And if anyone sees any children, please let us know. 

Host: And just like in the Black Panther movies, all of this violence and loss, all of the things that might feel really complex and confusing in the news – the materials that exist in Congo are a huge factor in it. 

Host: Ok so. How did we get here? 

Lewis Mudge: it is a huge country. 

The distance from the Western part of the country, where the capital Kinshasa is, to the Eastern border, is the same distance as London to Moscow. Lewis lived in the way Eastern part of the country where most of this story takes place. A city named... 

Ngofeen: Goma: when you think about the geography of Goma or around Goma, what's the comparison that you make, whether it's in the US or elsewhere in the world? Like gimme like what are we, what are the visuals? 

Lewis Mudge: The comparison to the the is is right where I am speaking to you right now. It's Vermont. It's hills, green, many of them pastures. Um, it's, it's lakes. I mean, this is the Great Lake region of Africa. 

Emmanuel Sekiyoba: You look at the area where I come from. Those volcanoes and the lake. 

Another Congolese person, Emmanuel Sekiyoba, professor of Economics in California who joined the call with my parents. My parents are from the West. He’s from the region, in the East. 

 Emmanuel Sekiyoba: The vegetation back home, it’s so wonderful  

 Lewis: One of the most idyllic places, in my opinion, in the world. 

Emmanuel Sekiyoba: And that’s how I feel. Except that when I look at where I come from, the calamities, the problems that has been happening there. It makes me wonder if we have done something wrong being born in that area. 

Ok so, to explain what’s happening now, I’m going to walk you through a few historical stops or events. The first stop actually does not take place in Congo. The first stop is in neighboring Rwanda.  

Lewis: Hotel Rwanda. 

You may remember Hotel Rwanda. The movie about the genocide that extremist Hutus committed against ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu allies. Right before the genocide begins, the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi are in a plane and they got shot down. No one knows by whom. 

Emmanuel Sekiyoba: When the two presidents got shot down, knowing the tension between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. It sparked something in my mind: there will be some serious problems there. 

The president was Hutu. And political extremists who are Hutu side blame Tutsi. And execute this genocide. 

The genocide only ends when Paul Kagame, a Tutsi who leads an army called the RPF - Rwandan Patriotic Front - drives the Rwandan Hutu militias out into the country next door.  

Lewis: You know, Hotel Rwanda, uh, the movie ends, right? The genocide ends and the movie ends. And that's not what happened. The genocide ended and the region then had its own absolutely terrific bloodletting. So in many ways, the genocide was over and the movie was just getting started.  

Host: It’s a grim movie. 

Lewis:  They grabbed, I mean, the, they had done, they had committed genocide. 

 they targeted tootsies, they killed families. I mean, you know, they, they killed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tootsies over the course, uh, uh, of just a few months in a very efficient genocide. And they realized they were in big trouble once the RPF, their enemy, had taken over Rwanda, and so they had to get out as quick as they could, and they needed cover. And so you saw, you can hear the recordings. I mean, you can read about it now. The, the people who committed genocide were saying to the Hutu civilians, they're going to kill you. You have to come with us. We were forcing you to come with us.  And so you saw masses of people leave Rwanda, um, for Eastern Zaire, uh, to save their lives. 

Host: That neighbor Zaire? …. That is Congo. It’s an old name. 

Lewis: Millions of Hutu leave Rwanda. 

Emmanuel Sekiyoba: Like a massive wave of people came across Goma to get into Congo.  

HOST: Paul Kagame becomes President of Rwanda. He looks sort of … mild-mannered: he’s got these big glasses that frame his face, and he’s got this sort of stern smile on at all times. Like even when he’s saying he’s ready to fight, it sounds like he could be telling you about the weather.  

Kagame builds this country up. He grew up in exile, in Uganda, speaking English. He changes the language of the Rwanda from French to English. Turns it into the Rwanda of today.  

Lewis: Rwanda is a country that loves its brand. You know, if anyone who is listening to this follows soccer, Arsenal Paris Saint Germain and Bayern Munich are all supported. 

They have marketing deals with Rwanda, with this big “visit Rwanda”, emblem on the players' arm bands  which is a brand of, ‘it's a safe place to visit. It's a safe place to do business’. The NBA has a developmental league in Kigali. 

HOST: But Reminder. Kagame has been president for nearly 25 years now. So the reality is pretty different from the brand. 

Lewis:  The RPF is a very authoritarian government. They control, they control what people are allowed to say. 

We, we've documented people who get in trouble for having a drink in a bar and saying something. So I'm not exaggerating when I say this is you, you have to be very careful about what you discuss. 

Host: That was our first stop.  

[HRW ad]  

HOST: Second big stop:  

Lewis: October ‘96. 

HOST: October 1996 

Lewis: October 96 is a date that's really seared into the brains of many people who were alive back then. And that was when Rwanda invaded Bukavu. Millions of Rwandans had fled into refugee camps that were in what was then eastern Zaire. 

Host: Well, Rwanda is literally on the eastern border with Congo. And Rwanda... after having driven the Rwandan Hutu militants out into Eastern Congo, into these massive refugee camps… Rwanda starts saber-rattling.   

Lewis: “We know that people who perpetrated genocide are in these camps. Uh, we consider them a threat and we're gonna clean these camps out.”  

 And October 96, um, Rwanda had enough. They were gonna clean these camps out, and they did so by shelling them with artillery and moving in and starting to target everybody. 

And so not only do you see, uh, an invasion, uh, you know, they, they crossed the border and, and went into Congo. 

Uh, but you saw a real, uh, bloodletting,  saw that civilians were absolutely an afterthought. Um, and that their priority was to either kill or push this mass of refugees further into the hinterland of DRC. 

That was the objective. Not to try to bring people home, not to try to do any meaningful ascertation of who might have committed the genocide and who hadn't. Um, no. It was, you know, ‘we don't have the time for that. We don't have the bandwidth for that. Let's kill everyone’. Um, so really just a terrible bloodletting started in Bukavu in 1996. 

That was the beginning of Rwanda's interference in the Eastern Congo. It also demonstrated that this is going to be a conflict that's gonna be marked by serious human rights abuses, war crimes, , crimes against humanity. Um, absolute acute violations of international humanitarian law.  

And it's just millions of people are gonna die. Millions. I mean, the numbers, you get numb to the numbers because they get so high. When you talk about the displacement, even where we are today, we're talking about millions of people displaced, you know, millions of people being moved around right now. 

Like chess pieces in, in the DRC, um, millions dead, starting in 96. 

Ngofeen: I remember when all the whispers start, all the meetings in congo, like my parents with their friends, all the, all the Congolese parents are like talking to each other and having these sort of, I don't know how to explain it to you, but to say that like, so you as a kid, you're like, I'm, I'm in the US. You're like, you know, playing games or whatever, and then you come out and all the parents are just like around a table or around in the living room with like dower faces, just know something serious is happening.  

Host: The story doesn’t end there.  

Under Paul Kagame, Rwandan armed forces go into Eastern Congo. They attack Hutus in the refugee camps indiscriminately. And it’s not just Rwandan Hutus, they’re attacking Congolese Hutus who weren’t involved in the genocide in Rwanda. 

And they don’t stop there. The armed forces decide they’re gonna march all the way across the country and take the capital, Kinshasa. They pick up Congolese allies along the way. And Uganda, where Paul Kagame grew up, joins in. 

Emmanuel Sekiyoba: It’s in Goma where everything is put together to march on Kinshasa. Using the child soldiers - they’re going to pick up kids from high school. Going just to school. They’re going to pick up the young men that are there and take them to training camps. And they will be supported by the RPF. And that’s how they will march all they way to Kinshasa.  

Papa: In the beginning, I didn’t even believe they would be able to reach Kinshasa because I said, their base is far back in Rwanda. I don’t see these people walking to Kinshasa. Because I’m sorry… you cannot imagine the distance from Bukavu to Mbandaka to Brazzaville. And those people walked.  

Host: Papa’s talking about people fleeing ahead of the armies marching.  

Ngofeen: Sorry. Papa. Can you say again, but if you can, don’t tap on the table because it’ll affect the microphone, but just say.  

Host: So people walked, fleeing the military forces. They marched from the East of the Congo all the way to the capitol in the West, taking territory.  

Papa: You cannot imagine… would that be from Texas to Tennessee? I don’t even know.  

Host: It’s much further. This is the length of Moscow to London. This march is truly like Napoleon level . Like walking from Illinois to Utah. It’s like walking the entire length of India from Mumbia to Dhaka, Bangladesh. And it’s gonna take a while, if it succeeds. People are just fleeing ahead. 

Papa: And while walking, they were being killed, bombarded by planes. You could see everything. 

Host: Along the way… people just DIE. Starvation. Massacres.  

But wait: if the genocide committers are in the Eastern Congo by the border, why are Rwandan troops and allies marching across the country? 

Lewis Mudge says it’s no longer just about the security of Rwanda -- i.e. the people who committed the genocide hanging out in Eastern Congo. It’s bigger: 

Lewis: if it were about, if it were about, well, we're worried about the, this is a purely security issue. Why would they hold territory? Why would they, after they pushed the, these, these, these Hutus out. Why would they hold territory? Why would they set up parallel administrative structures? Why would they set up an office in Kigali for the exportation of Congolese minerals, which they did?  

Why would the RPF, uh, the Rwandan Patriotic Front go on to become one of the richest political parties in the world, uh, on the back of Congolese minerals? The security argument is legitimate, but there are absolutely economic advantages that came into play. 

Host: Black Panther y’all. 

Ngofeen:  Ngofeen: Um, maybe it's a foolish question to ask, but why is that not like a Ukraine, Russia moment globally? Why is that not like right now? 

Lewis: It’s an interesting question. 

Ngofeen: Right now we can, we all have this memory. We can all sort of go, even if we don't know a lot about the politics, we can be like, you know, when Russia invaded Ukraine and it's like a, a seismic shift? 

Lewis: Yeah, I think there's the, look, there's several reasons, but I think the most important as they're germane to, to, to where we are today is that number one, the world and rightly so, felt this unbelievable guilt for what had happened in 94 in Rwanda. This was a genocide that was carried out by machetes, Um. The world absolutely positively could have stopped this genocide. 

And didn't hundreds of thousands of lives, could have been saved with a very minimal un peacekeeping force. There was actually a peacekeeping force on the ground, Belgians. Um, they, they ended up leaving. 

So the world,  The world felt this unbelievable guilt and that guilt translated then and in some ways continues today into Kagame getting a free rein. //  I have conversations with people very high up around the world who will tell me privately he still gets free rein because of our failures in 94. So you, you, you never were gonna hear this, um, Ukraine moment. They, on the contrary, there was some shoulder shrugging about like, well, you know, gosh, we, we didn't help them in 94. And so kind of means he can do what he wants. 

Host: Kagame and his allied forces depose the president of Congo, Mobutu Sese Seko… 

Kagame and his allied forces install a new president. You may have heard his name: President (Laurent) Kabila. So, so far so good from the perspective of the Rwandan, Ugandan, Congolese rebel-led allied armed forces. 

But then, all hell breaks loose in 1998. The new Congolese president - the one installed by Rwanda – he turns against the Rwandan led forces. He dismisses his chief of staff James Kabarebe, and replaces him with a Congolese person. (Side note: Kabarebe was just sanctioned by the US for his role coordinating Rwandan support to the M23 in the latest iteration of the crisis) 

Then Kabila orders all the Rwandan and Ugandan forces to leave the country. And a second war breaks out. 

And this turns into just a massive African war. It is an epic struggle over the Congolese version of vibranium. … Congo’s mineral resources. 

THEN…. In a final move of chaos… in 2001… the Congolese president, Laurent Kabila gets assassinated. The war intensifies. 

By 2003,, when I was hearing Hey Ya by Outkast on the radio and also Stacy's Mom - when that is happening, if you traced a line down the map of Africa north to south from Libya to South Africa,  

EVERY. 

SINGLE. 

Country on that line was involved in this huge African war, which revolved around the Congo. Libya. Chad. Sudan. Central African Republic. Uganda. Rwanda. Burundi. Tanzania. Zambia. Angola. Namibia. South Africa. And of course, the Congo. 

Archival/African Biographic/10-9-20: Nine African countries took part in this war including Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia. By 2008 the war in this aftermath had caused 5.4 million deaths principally through disease and starvation making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict since World War II. 

Host: The UN… international diplomats… try to force everyone to the table. And create this compromise where there’s one Congolese president - Joseph Kabila, the assassinated guy’s son…. And 4 – 1 2 3 4 -- Vice Presidents.  

For a while, there’s a stretch of Calm. But things are tense.  

Lewis: you saw a lot of countries want to get in for either, uh, regional strategic interests, uh, to secure, to try to secure, uh, you know, their own companies and mining sites.  uh, Rwanda ramped up their mental exportation after these wars in which they take territory in the Congo. 

Ngofeen: So even dating back to ‘96? 

Lewis: Yeah, absolutely.  

Host: Until our third stop.  

Lewis:  October, November, 2008. 

Host: So you have this tentative peace… country’s broken into regions. That agreement falls apart. The group in the Eastern Congo that would become M23, they’re backed by Rwanda, and they decide they’re gonna rebel. 

in 2012, the M23, with Rwanda’s support, marches into Goma. But US President Obama makes a phone call to Kagame, and with international pressure, things change. 

Lewis: And we see Kagame pull back, 

Host: M23 pulls back, and when the M23 no longer receives the military support it needed from Rwanda, the Congolese army and UN forces quickly defeat the rebels.  

The Congolese government stalls efforts to demobilize and reintegrate former combatants, and there are very few efforts to bring to justice M23 and other armed group leaders implicated in abuses. 

And so, the problem never really went away. And now the current conflict breaks out in 2021, actually. It’s been going on for a few years. 

Lewis: So late 2021, here we are again. They, they rebelled  and this is all happening. With Kagame and Rwanda's blessing and support. Um, so this is not something happening in, in a void. This is happening, this is strategic. 

HOST: That brings us to today. The news you’re hearing out of Congo. The taking of Goma. And Bukavu. LAND and MINERALS. 

Lewis:  We're seeing a heavy presence of the Rwandans in these territories that, that are controlled. And very quickly, they started setting up state administrative structures. So, you know, they, they, they got on, they had a big meeting in Goma and said, let's get everyone back to school. 

You know, we're in a new Goma, let's get everyone back to school. Uh, they started, um. Obligatory cleanups around the city. So around Bukavu and around Goma, citizens are now being obliged to go out and clean up the city. They wanna present this image. They've started a taxing system. They've had meetings with people to explain how there's gonna be movement between Rwanda and the DRC under this new administration. 

So we're really seeing the setup of state administrative structures very, very quickly. And that to us indicates, they're in this for the long term. 

Host: You know I’m trained in audio editing and it's all about tight cuts. But given that we never hear from Congolese people, as we wrap up, you’re gonna hear from them now. And it’s not gonna be tight. We’re gonna give them space.  

Ngofeen: So thirty thousand feet as they Zoom out… we are talking about the intrigues and… twists and turns of politics. And the people who suffer from that is people living their lives, who have nothing to do with the politics. People are just living. There’s a question you have to answer that people will have inherently, which is like… ‘Ok. Now I understand how we got here.’ But then the question is “If I’m living in France, or if I’m living in Japan, if I’m living in Brazil, if I’m living in Canado, or if I’m living in Malaysia -- why should I care about what’s going on?’ 

Mama: First of all you should care because people are being killed. These people, are human beings, regardless of their colors. And why are they being killed? That’s where we talk about the land. We talk about the minerals. So, for them to get the minerals, they steal the minerals by killing the people. The owners are killing the Congolese. And everybody has to be involved. So the story of Congo has to be told. The minerals don’t only go to Rwanda. It goes to… all these other countries. The “powers” to be. Meaning it goes to Europe, it goes to America, Canada, wherever, China. They know that Rwanda doesn’t have these minerals. So they’re getting them from Congo. People need to care because guess what we’re all using the telephones. We have computers. We have all this stuff that we are using. We need to tell the stories of this minerals. Are producing these telephones that we all love and computers and all this other stuff, technology. Do people have to die for this to be made? No. So, this needs to stop. When you just think that my phone I’m using, somebody was dead for me to use this phone, that gonna ring a little bell. How? Well then, we can tell a little story. That’s why we are all marching, we are all doing whatever we can to let people know what is going one. How many people have to die?  

If you just count, yaya, if you just count, from January till now, people have died and they are still dying! Wow. I say what I say, it’s not enough, but you can just hear what is coming from me. 

Host: Y’all thought I cared about human rights. You have no idea. 

So, what do we do? What are Human Rights Watch’s recommendations? Back to Lewis… 

Lewis:  So the short term, this is only gonna come from pressure on Rwanda. Um  in once again, Kagame realizing that this has gone too far. Pressure on Rwanda and this can come in many forms and maybe that means, you know, people who watch soccer or watch Formula One or watch the NBA - the NBA has a developmental league in Kigali. Um, you know, they're gonna have to start recognizing that, um, there's a price to pay in, in the sportswashing. Uh, no, uh, there's a, there's a, there's a really dark negative side of this as well in which Rwanda's brand is in the region is that ‘this is a force for good’. And, um, whilst, you know, I lived there for many years, I raised my first kid there. Whilst there are some good things happening in Rwanda, and the Rwandan politics regionally are not stabilizing. Rwanda benefits from war in Eastern Congo in order to profit from the minerals in the ground. 

Host: And long term:  

Lewis: Longer term, we need to have in place in which we actually create a viable, meaningful army that is able to. Defend this country in a meaningful way, uh, that, that just has to happen.  This, this, this crisis might be put out, and six months from now, it might be an afterthought, but it'll come back in a few years. If the Congo is continually seen by its regional neighbors as a place to be exploited, to be abused, because its army is so hollowed out.  We're just gonna continue to have these cycles of violence. 

Emmanuel Sekiyoba: But as a Congolese, I’m hurt because my brother is suffering, I have to care. If you were in Indonesia, a tsunami came and wiped out something, I feel so bad, I leave near the ocean, it may be me tomorrow. Why not having that feeling? It doesn’t cost you any money. It doesn’t cost you any money. Why not care? Why?  

Host: For more on what’s been going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo, go to Human Rights Watch’s website: h-r-w dot o-r-g. 

The archival clips in this episode are from Disney, Tesla, MGM Studios, and African Biographic. 

You’ve been listening to Rights and Wrongs, from Human Rights Watch. This episode was produced by me and Curtis Fox. Our associate producer is Sophie Soloway. Thanks also to Ifé Fatunase, Stacy Sullivan, and Anthony Gale.  

We’re still short of our goal of 1 billion listeners, can you believe it? So, we still need you to help in spreading the word. Subscribe, leave a review, and let everyone know about the podcast on social media. I’m Ngofeen Mputubwele. Talk to you again in two weeks.  

Host: Why do people move? Why do people pick up their lives and their belongings, and move from a place where they have friends and family and know exactly where to catch the bus and how to walk home if they missed it … to a place where… they might not know anyone? 

Two big reasons come to mind. You move like, to go to school, for a better job, to be with someone who lives in a different part of the world. You move because you want to, you know, for some sort of opportunity. Or… 

Archival/PBS/10/9/2024: The western city of Asheville, in particular, has been devastated ...  

Archival/7NewsAustralia/1/19/25: The flames roaring into the most destructive fires in California’s history. . . 

Host: Or, because you have to…  

Archival/NBC News/9/21/23: Turmoil in Venezuela, driving millions from the country as refugees, battling a struggling economy, food insecurity . . . 

Host: Sometimes you move because you just can’t survive anymore where you live.  

Archival/CBS/3/20/22: The Western borders of Ukraine have become a sieve ....  

Host: The economy has collapsed, maybe there’s famine or war.  

Archival/Al Jazeera/1/5/25: Getting out of Gaza for medical help is a process rights groups say should be simpler.. . . 

Host: And your only chance is to move to a place where there might be safety, or work. 

Sometimes, you move because of persecution. Like, you’re the enemy of those in power, those with guns, and you’ll be killed or imprisoned if you stay. I feel like we forget that.  

There’s lots of reasons people move. And my goodness are people moving. At this moment, there are more displaced people in the world than at any time in history.  

At the same time, the options for this flood of humanity are dwindling. I’m thinking mainly of Europe and the United States… governments are tightening their borders. They’re saying louder and louder to the world’s persecuted and desperate, enough. We don’t want you. 

Archival/Face the Nation/1/21/25: . . . those orders aimed at boosting military presence to secure the Mexico/US border and shutting down refugee admissions. . .  

Host: We don’t want you. 

Archival/France 24/4/10/24: One by one, members of the European Parliament approved a sweeping new pact on migration that has been years in the making. . .  

Host: We don't want you.  

Archival/ABC News/5/30/24: For some years now, Australian authorities have tried to deport him back to Iran . . .  

Host: Sorry, we don't want you.  

Archival/The Telegraph/10/12/23: Poland’s referendum will likely serve as a firm rejection of the liberal border policies that have led to conflict and division across the continent. 

Host: Now, we’re not going to jump into the politics of migration policy. We’re going to get to what gets lost in all the talk about migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. We’re going to talk about the stakes for the people. And in this episode, we talk about one person… 

Hannah: [Farsi] 

Host: We’re going to hear the story of one Afghan refugee now in the U.S. Her story is instructive and wild. 

This is Rights & Wrongs, a podcast from Human Rights Watch. I'm Ngofeen Mputubwele. I am a writer, a lawyer, and a radio producer. Human Rights Watch asked me to look at human rights hotspots around the world through the eyes and ears of people on the front lines of history.  

This week, one Afghan refugee. 

Hannah: Ok, so I’m ready… 

Host: … “Hanaa Rahimi.” That’s not her real name. She’s got people back in Afghanistan and she fears for their safety for saying what she’s about to tell us. 

Hanaa:  is it okay if I say this, uh, in, in Farsi? Because, uh, 

Ngofeen: yeah, yeah yeah.  

Host: Hanaa’s English is pretty good, but she was a little unsure of it at first… so early on we’re going to hear her switch between English and Farsi… .  

Hanaa: [Farsi, fade under…] 

Host: I wanted to understand what Hanaa’s life was like before she came to the U.S., before the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021. The life she had to flee from.  

Just a few years ago, when American troops were still fighting in Afghanistan, Hanaa worked for the Afghan National Police. Before that, she was a women's rights activist, and she says she was very vocal…  

Hanaa/translated:  Uh, I used to do lots of media interviews on these topics, and people used to warn me that this is not safe, women and men are not equal to each other, so you better stop doing media interviews, but I never really cared about it, because I believe that debt will come when it's time, and for that, um, I used to stand to speak for women's rights. 

Ngofeen: What made you want to do the activism in the first place? 

Hanaa:  So maybe from the beginning, I learned from my family, first of all, my mom, because she was also a social activist and she was a very strong and brave woman. And she always speak and she always wants, uh, what she wants and she always ask about what's wrong. [Switches to Farsi, fade under…] 

Hanaa/translated:  Um, I lived in Iran for, uh, around eight to 10 years when I was a child and the people around me, my friends, my relatives, we all, uh, kind of felt responsible to return back to Afghanistan and to make a change in the new government. 

So that's what pushed me to become an activist.  

Ngofeen: And why did you join the Afghan National Police? 

Hanaa: It was my childhood dream. I don't know why. I, I, I thought like if I became a police, I can defend my, myself. I can defend my country. I can defend everyone, everyone. I can bring a big change. It was like a dream came true. 

Host: Before the Taliban takeover, the Afghan National Police did both traditional police work and had a role in counterinsurgency operations. The Americans and its NATO allies had been trying to get more women on the force, as Hanaa explained through our interpreter…  

Hanaa/translated:  one of the main reasons for the U. S. to come to Afghanistan was to make sure that women are granted equal rights with men. So this was a huge thing for them to make sure that women of Afghanistan are part of everything.   

Host: So there was that very idealistic goal. But as Hanaa told me there were also very practical reasons to have women police officers… cultural reasons… 

Hanaa: Okay. So in US, it's very normal or natural. You can touch other women's or kiss or hug, but in Afghanistan, you cannot do this. A man cannot touch a woman.  

That's why we need to have a police officer so they can touch women and see if something happened.  

Hanaa: Farsi 

Hanaa/translated:  The international forces, including the U. S. military used to get into the houses and search, um, women as well. And there were lots of criticism on why international men or even the Afghan police forces who are male security officers are touching women's body when they're doing the searches. So for that reason, it was important for the Afghanistan police forces to have women so they could do or carry out the searches in those houses. 

Hanaa: [farsi] 

 Hanaa/translated: And you may not believe that there were suicide bombers who are trying to explode themselves and get into the governmental buildings in women's clothes. So many of them had been caught by these female police officers who were at the entrance gate and could protect the whole office. 

Hanaa: [farsi] 

Host: Also, says Hanaa, women police officers were important when women were victims of crimes… or even perpetrators…  

 Hanaa/translated: it was quite, um, usual in Afghanistan for women to be beaten by their in laws, uh, by their husbands, and at some points even their, um, children, because when the elders in the family do not respect women, it's easier for the younger ones, uh, to, to lose that respect when these women used to come to the police station and file a complaint. 

Usually the men in the station would say that there is something wrong with this woman. Maybe she didn't listen to her husband. Maybe she has done something wrong and that's why she's been beaten. We were the ones who would check the body and find out what has happened. We could see that these women are injured. 

We could see that the, uh, the woman's bodies are turned to black because they have been beaten really bad. Um, but in most of these cases, one of the things that used to make me very angry was that they were being advised to be a good woman not to be beaten for not to be beaten. 

Hanaa: [farsi] 

Hanaa/translated:  seeing the presence of women in, in, in those offices helped them to, to speak, uh, um, more comfortably with these women and explain the process. Says of what exactly had happened. 

Ngofeen: From your perspective, did having women police officers end up helping Afghan women? 

Hanaa: Yes. They did. All the time. Yeah. 

Host: Hanaa said she trained to be a police woman in Turkey, with international trainers. In Afghanistan she met with Americans on a few occasions, but otherwise had little contact with them. She became the head of recruitment for women police in the one station in Afghanistan. And there she took note of a problem within the Afghan National Police, that was making recruitment difficult… 

Hanaa/translated:  I have, uh, witnessed cases of women being raped. By their male colleagues. In some of these cases, these women were forced to have sex with their colleagues because otherwise they could have been fired from their position. There were examples of women being fired simply because they didn't have sex with their male colleagues. It was easy also for men to touch women or, or to sexually harass them against, uh, these police officers. Uh, well, during the working hours, um, and you needed to be very brave and a person who could argue to not to be subject to these, um, harassment. For example, I was very vocal and I used to be loud, so that's why they couldn't do anything to me. 

Host: So, a tough job to begin with, that male police officers made intolerable. That was one reason the goal of having 15,000 women on the force was never reached.  

Ngofeen:  what do you remember about when the when the Taliban took over in 2021?  

Hanaa: Uh, my province was one of the first , uh, provinces or places that Taliban took. 

Me and my family, we was stuck at home. My friends, my colleagues, they call me and they say, please just move. Just save yourself because they start to, uh, start to searching that, uh, the police officers. It doesn't matter if they are women or men. So, uh, My dad, he was worried about me because I was also a police officer and we move, uh, we had a car. So we are all, uh, together. We moved to my cousin house. We was hiding for one one or two days, and then they say that, uh, you have to, uh, they call me, they always report me, please move, please move, they starting here, they going there. Uh, so, we move to the Kabul. and we hide somewhere in Kabul. We rent a house, very expensive, somewhere no one understands who we are. Then after like one week, Kabul also finished, like the Taliban took over Kabul, we were shocked  

and I wanted to return, return home. I said, maybe they're, they're not going to say anything now, everything is calm, but, but, uh, they call me and they say, Oh, they killed Zarifa. One of my colleagues, I just saw her like two, two days ago. Oh, they shot her in front of her children and husband. 

So, my dad said, no, we cannot return. I don't want to lose you. They'll kill you because you was very active and you're, so yeah. 

Okay, sorry. 

Ngofeen: Yeah, no, don't be sorry at all. There's nothing to be sorry for at all.  

Hanaa: And, uh, and, uh, when they took the police station, they opened my office. They, they, uh, broke the lock I had and they find my, all of my information and they find my number. 

I had just one number. I used that. And they send me text by WhatsApp by, they called me. They call me and they say, you have to come back. And we, we are not gonna kill you. You, you will work with us. But I know they, they're lying. They, they just lying. I know I cannot trust them. They say, we know your mom, we know your family, I know you, it's better for you to come back. You have to surrender yourself. It will be better for you. But my dad and all of my family, they say, no, we cannot go back because they already killed like two, three or more than women. 

Uh, we, we, we are. Every day by the news, by my colleagues, they call me. 

Host: Meanwhile, Hanaa and her family applied for visas. But then… 

Archival/BBC: Carnage in Afghanistan after twin explosions at Kabul airport killed at least 60 people according to a health officials, and injured dozens more... 

Host: So forget that option. The family then decided to buy very expensive visas to be admitted into Iran, the country next-door. Problem was, the two youngest members of the family, Hanaa’s little sister and brother, didn’t have passports. So they sent them on ahead, with a relative, to try to enter Iran illegally… 

 Hanaa: They so suffered. They get so skinny. One time they lost each other. We was in Afghanistan. We don't want it to move before them because we want to understand after they arrive, then we will move. So after 15 day, when they arrive in Iran, my Uncle, uh, he called me. Hey, they are here. Don't worry. So then we buy our ticket very expensive and we just escape. 

Host: Hanaa lived for several months in Iran, and while there she got married, to a fellow Afghan. But Iran, she said, was not welcoming.  

Hanaa:  I cannot stay in Iran, they, anytime they can deport me and they, they are not good with Afghans. They don't respect us. They don't know even we are a human. They look at like we are animal, unfortunately, most of the time, and I cannot go Afghanistan also. No choice. These two countries, I cannot stay. So I say. I'm gonna go. I don't care what will happen for me. I'm gonna go. 

Host: But go where? This is when her story takes a random turn. Back in Afghanistan she’d heard from a friend that Brazil was offering humanitarian visas for Afghans, and she’d applied. After six months in Iran, she got that visa there at the Brazilian embassy. But the family had sold everything to get out of Afghanistan, and there wasn’t enough money for all of them to go. And besides, they wouldn’t be able to get visas for Hanaa’s younger siblings because they didn’t have passports, and the family couldn’t abandon them in Iran. 

Hanaa:  So, they say please, you have to go, you're the one save us, you're the one, you can go and build your life and help us. Because, uh, yeah, I'm the first child of my family. They are all smaller than me. I was the one always support my family. So I borrow some money from my friends and buy the ticket for Brazil. I just fly in Brazil. The country, I don't know the culture. No language, no friend, no family. 

Host: Yet there she was, in a shelter or or homeless on the streets. And not long after she arrived, she realized she would not be able to meet the requirements for her family to join her in Brazil. So, she was stuck. 

Hanaa:  It was so bad experience in Brazil for me. I know they are very kind people. I love Brazil. They are very kind.They are very respectful. But the economy, the situation for an Afghan girl or for an immigrant girl. With hijab, it was not too fun. 

Host: So not fun that she thought of returning to Iran or even going back to Afghanistan. But some of her friends who had also escaped Afghanistan and were dispersed in various countries said no, Iran will deport you, and wAfghanistan.... 

Hanaa: In Afghanistan they will find you and kill you. What are you doing? I said, so what? What? What? What's the next step? They said, we will give you money. Please go in U. S.  

Host: After about 9 months in Brazil, Hanaa borrowed money from friends, and headed towards the U.S. With some families she’d met in Brazil, she flew to Nicaragua, then they took cars and boats and walked when they had to, until they made it into Mexico. From there they took a plane north, then walked toward the U.S. border.  

 Hanaa: One time they catch us, the police, and they put us in the jail for, for three days.  And then they give us a permission for 20 days. They say, if you want to stay here, so stay. If you don't want to stay before 20 days, you have to leave our country and go wherever you want.  

Host: So a group of them, they were about 35 migrants by this time, walked to the border. It was night, and the group lost touch with each other and broke up into separate groups… 

Hanaa: We separate together. Me and a girl, uh, she was my friend. We introduced when we was on way. And a man, he was Arab and he was very old. We three was together. And we walked for like seven hour. And then we enter in U. S.  

Ngofeen: That is wild.  

Hanaa: Yeah.  

Host: When we come back, what happened to Hanaa after she arrived in the U.S… 

[HRW ad] 

Host: Hanaa crossed into the U.S. in 2023. She did not try to evade authorities. She turned herself in and spent about 18 hours in a police station on the border, where she asked for asylum. Immigration officials paroled her. In other words, she could stay in the country and apply for asylum, at which point she would be told whether or not she could remain. So there she was, free in Texas, no money, no working papers. But she did have something very important: a court date… November 22, 2023, in Virginia. Some friends lent her more money and eventually she flew from Texas to Virginia, where she knew some people… 

Hanaa:  When I came to Virginia, I, uh, Sammy, my friend, I gave his number, but I cannot live with him because he is a man. I cannot live with him. He come to airport and we went together on Richmond. I was like for one, one or two months in that house on Richmond that, uh, they rent us for refugees... 

Host: This was a house rented by a group of Afghan women helping other Afghan women...  

Hanaa: And then the owners say you have to find another house for yourself. 

Host: In the meantime, she got free help doing her application for asylum from a non-profit organization that supplied an immigration lawyer. She also stayed a few months with an American family in Pennsylvania… 

Hanaa:  My American family, and we are still family. I'm so proud and so happy to have them because they helped me after I, I know them and they, we meet each other. They know we are part of our family. 

Host: But she needed to be back for that all-important court date, so she moved in with an Afghan family in Virginia for about six months. She had two court dates actually, and at the second one she learned if she could stay in the country. 

Hanaa:  It was on March, March 18, 2024. Uh, so my second court, they, uh, approved my asylum and they say, Oh my gosh, how you came here? What? Like we never hear like this journey, how a lonely girl, how you did all of this? I say no choice. 

Host: Hanaa got papers allowing her to stay in the U.S. as a refugee. She got a work permit, a social security number. She applied for a job and a week later she landed one. She now lives alone in her own place. And she’s paying off those debts to her friends…. 

Hanaa: I still have like $10,000 I have to give them. [laughs] 

******** 

Host: Now all of this story, from the Taliban takeover to Hanaa’s journey into the U.S. and what happened once she got here -- all of this took place when Biden was president. As soon as Trump took office, things changed. Trump declared a national emergency and signed a blitz of executive orders on border security, asylum, and the U.S.’s refugee program. 

I wanted to understand, how would these changes affect someone like Hanaa seeking asylum right now? So I talked to an expert… 

 Bill: My name is Bill Frelick, and I'm the director of Human Rights Watch's Refugee and Migrant Rights Division. 

Host: First thing I wanted to know: If someone seeking asylum manages to cross the U.S. border, as Hanaa did when Biden was president, what would happen to that person now, under Trump? Would they be caught, released and given a court date, as Hanaa was? 

Frelick:  One of the things that the Trump administration has done. is to say that, uh, because there's supposedly an invasion at the, of the United States by aliens, um, that people will not be allowed to apply for asylum here, if that would mean that they would stay in this country. 

Host: In other words, no. Migrants presenting themselves at the border seeking asylum, as Hanaa did, are no longer allowed to apply for asylum to stay in the U.S. This executive order is a kind of Catch-22. 

Frelick: It explicitly says you can't use asylum if that would mean that you, as one of these invading aliens, would, would, um, stay in the country. On its face, I think it's illegal, but it's, it completely contradicts what's written in the law, but it actually cites the very law that it says you're not allowed to use. 

Host: Another question. What happens to people who show up at the border anyway and turn themselves in to immigration officials. For them, Bill says, it’s now mandatory detention… 

Frelick: What mandatory detention means, what is said in the orders is that, basically from that point of arrest until the conclusion of your processing or removal from the country, you are to be in detention that whole time. 

Host: So, no more letting asylum-seekers free as they wait for their cases to move forward, as with Hanaa. It’s now “catch and detain.” 

But what if you’re an Afghan already in the country? You belong to a nationality group with “parole,” which means you have legal status to stay in the U.S. while your case is in process. Afghans, Venezuelans, Haitians, Ukrainians, Cubans, these nationalities have parole. What happens to those people now? 

Frelick:  so if you were, you know, an Afghan that was paroled in, if you were a Venezuelan that was paroled in, whatever it might be, you're now going to be subjected to expedited removal, which is something that really had only applied in the border area, um, prior to this. 

Host: “Expedited removal.” Removal used to be called deportation. The jargon comes fast and furious in immigration policy! Expedited removal means that ICE officials can deport non-citizens without a hearing before an immigration judge. Under Biden, expedited removal was only applied near the border. Now, it can be applied anywhere in the U.S. So you have tens of thousands of Haitians, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, Cubans, Afghans and others, who have been legally paroled into the U.S., in danger of being deported without so much as a hearing before a judge. 

Frelick:  It's a chaotic framework that basically is attempting to close every avenue, closing refugee resettlement, closing parole, closing asylum, blocking physical entry, making people inadmissible, extending the most expedited way of removing people, and then other elements to this, including making mandatory detention. And now we've already seen the use of the military, both to deport people and to take people to Guantanamo, a military base on Cuba, that has a history of torture and, and, and ill treatment, to put people again indefinitely into detention where they will be isolated from human rights monitors, from lawyers, from family, whatever it might be, and punishes people for, in many cases, for seeking the protection of the United States. 

Host: So let’s get back to Hanaa. What do all of these recent changes mean for her and her situation?  

Hanaa:  Um, so when I asked my lawyer, she say you're not in danger now because you're legally in US and judge accepted you to be here.  

Host: In other words, since she has already been granted asylum, the recent changes under Trump shouldn’t affect her. So she has applied for a green card, which would give her permanent legal residence and put her on a path towards citizenship. Yet in spite of her relative good fortune, her life, on a deeper level, many levels, is difficult.  

First of all, there are the betrayals. Those allegations of sexual abuse experienced by Afghan policewomen that Hanaa described earlier? They were never investigated. which led to the death or exile of her neighboring countries. And the U.S. government has refused failed to resettle the vast majority of them. Currently there’s no program for these women. 

Then there are the personal difficulties. 

Her husband’s still in Iran but her parents… snuck back into Afghanistan… 

Hanaa: I was so worried when they decide they wanted to return to Afghanistan. How can I live here? My mind will be with you. If Taliban came, if they shoot on you, if they ask me to come, if I don't return, they will kill you. 

What I'm gonna do? My mom and dad say, you never come back. If they want to kill us, they can do it. But please, you never come back here. We are old. If we die, it doesn't matter. But you're young. We don't want you to die. But we want to return. Now they are in Afghanistan. Thanks God they are not in trouble. But I still scared. I still worried. My husband is in Iran. My family, they are in Afghanistan. 

One of my sister, she went to the Yunnan, we call Yunnan, you say Greece. She also went illegally because she doesn't have any choice. She was reporter when she was in Afghanistan. 

She was in danger also. And it's really hard when I wake up in the morning. Okay. My body is here in US, but my soul, my mind, my everything, my thought is everywhere. I think about everyone. .  

I'm living. I'm alive, but I'm not enjoying. 

***** 

Host: So what is the human rights angle on all this? Well, says Bill Frelick, it starts with international law… 

Frelick:  it's a treaty obligation for parties to the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Protocol, which U. S. is, is a party to the Protocol, that you cannot send a refugee back to a place where their life or freedom would be threatened. 

Host: Countries are not obliged to admit refugees or asylum seekers. Their legal obligation is to not send them back to the place they fled from if it’s likely they will be killed or imprisoned.  

Frelick:  We focus on the need for protection. We focus on people who are at risk of being pushed back to places where they'd be persecuted. And whether that's the United States directly sending someone back to Haiti, where they're going to be subjected to gang violence, or whether it is cutting off aid that will push refugees back into a conflict zone. You know, if you, if you cut off aid to the refugee camps in Thailand or Bangladesh, will those countries push refugees back into Myanmar? This is a real threat and it's a real worry. And so we, we will be looking at that and are looking at that every step of the way. We'll look at that in terms of, you know, what's happening inside Myanmar, what's happening in Bangladesh, what's happening in Thailand, but also what's happening in Washington, D. C., what's happening at the European Union level, and work to try to maintain asylum, in those, those, countries of first arrival, but also to provide and advocate for safe and legal pathways for people that are in need of protection. 

Host: Safe and legal pathways. It seems so simple! Yet the politics of migrants and refugees is roiling the world, not just the U.S. Yet… for normal people, Bill says, there are things we can do… 

Frelick:  there are many opportunities for people to work closely, you know, if, if, if it's through a faith based connection or otherwise for people in the United States or anywhere really in the world, there are opportunities to, to assist, to help people, you know, to reach out, um, to, to lend a hand. By your actions you're demonstrating, um, a, a, an interest in protecting people and that is essential I think to holding governments accountable as well. It just can't be Human Rights Watch wagging a finger in the face of an official. It needs to have sort of this organic component of people that care. 

Host: Bill Frelick is director of Human Rights Watch's Refugee and Migrant Rights Division. Thanks to Hanaa Rahimi for sharing her story with us. Fereshta Abbasi, Afghanistan Researcher in the Asia division at Human Rights Watch, translated Hanaa’s Farsi into English. 

You can read more about refugees and asylum seekers from Afghanistan and elsewhere on Human Rights Watch’s website, h-r-w dot o-r-g. 

The archival clips in this episode are from PBS NewsHour, 7 News Australia, NBC News, CBS, Al Jazeera, Face the Nation, France 24, ABC News, The Telegraph and the BBC. 

We’ve been doing this show for 12 episodes now and our goal is a billion listeners! Which we haven't gotten yet. Which means – we need you to spread the word! If you want to keep hearing from people like Hanaa, you can subscribe to the show, leave a review, spread the word on social media, tell people. It really helps. You can listen to us wherever you get your podcasts.  

You’ve been listening to Rights and Wrongs, from Human Rights Watch. This episode was produced by me and Curtis Fox. Our associate producer is Sophie Soloway. Thanks also to Ifé Fatunase, Stacy Sullivan, and Anthony Gale.  

I’m Ngofeen Mputubwele. Talk to you again in two weeks.