Sumbu Chantraine Temo, President of Amnesty International at Stockholm University.

Exotic fruits and world-class wine labeled from South Africa are popular in the European market.  More and more wineries claim that their wine is grown and harvested in conditions that conform to human right norms and fair labor practices; however, reports from NGO’s such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and The South African Human Rights Commission allege the opposite.

South Africa is the seventh largest wine-producing country in the world.  The country’s vineyards are concentrated primarily in Western Cape, known as the “Paradise of South Africa,” a province internationally recognized for its vast wine production.  Six of South Africa’s nine wine regions are located there.

South Africa’s emerging wine export industry accounts for 2.2% of the country’s GDP and generates over $3 billion a year for the South African economy.  In 2009, the export value for wine in Western Cape reached $700 million US dollars. According to the South African Wine Information and Systems, the wine industry supports employment opportunities to over 275,000 workers, most of whom are unskilled (58%).

A recent report by HRW indicates that despite the fact that wine is a profitable industry in South Africa, farmworkers in Western Cape reap little benefit from the flourish in business and rather suffer human rights abuses at the hands of farmers, including uninhabitable living conditions, illegal evictions, and exposure to chemicals and pesticides.

Living conditions unfit for human habitation

In August 2011, HRW published a comprehensive report entitled, Ripe with Abuse: Human Rights Conditions in South Africa’s Fruit and Wine Industries, which includes 260 testimonies from Western Cape’s farmers.  (See REPORT:  Ripe With Abuse, Human Rights Watch, August 2011)  Sinah B.’s testimony is one of them.  She revealed that the farm’s security guards, in an attempt to drive families away, threatened her and her children with dogs and guns in the middle of the night.

“They came at night at 1 or 2 in the morning; slammed on doors, took children over 18 who didn’t work here to the police station… Security would come with dogs and guns at night. It happened a lot of times … [about] three times a week for two to three years.” (HRW report, pg. 52)

40 year old Isaak S. worked on the same farm for a decade. During this time, he and his family lived in a pig stall, which has remained unchanged since he moved to the farm – with no toilet or improvements to the condition of the stall. (HRW report, pg. 46)

Sol C. tells a similar story.  He worked the farm for nearly 20 years until he became disabled in 2010.  Evicted from shacks numerous times following his accident, he and his wife eventually moved into one of the farm’s outhouses.  Landowners simply covered the toilet holes and he and his wife have remained there ever since.

These stories illustrate the biggest problem that South Africa’s land laborers face:  access to safe, stable housing, which is a basic human right recognized in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  As Article 25 of the UDHR states, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Evictions

In addition to living in very poor conditions, farmworkers also face the constant threat of illegal evictions.

Between 1994-2004, more than 930,000 farmworkers – including dwellers – were evicted from their farms, despite the fact that laws exist that are meant to protect farmworkers from being illegally and unfairly removed from their homes.

In a documentary entitled, “Beneath the Surface, Fruit and Wine Workers in the Western Cape,” Siphokazi Mthathi of HRW reports on the living conditions of the region’s land laborers.  Though inhabitable housing and the harassment are well documented by the government and NGO’s, little efforts have been made by the South African government to curb these illegal activities or strengthen current laws.

To evict a farmworker, the farmer must follow specific regulations stated in the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA), which also defines who qualifies as a farmworkers.  For example, the ESTA outlines specific situations where a farmworker may not be evicted.  Specifically, “[a] long term occupier is someone who has resided on a farm for more than 10 years and is over 60 years of age or who cannot provide labour to a land owner as a result of ill health, disability or injury. Long term occupiers’ rights of residence may not be terminated unless they have:

1.  intentionally and unlawfully harmed any other person occupying the land, 2. intentionally damaged property of a farmer engaged in behaviour which threatens others occupying the land, 4. assisted other unauthorised people to establish new dwellings on the farm, 5.  breached a condition or term of their residence with which they are able to comply, but have not done so despite being given one month’s notice to comply. (For example: when an occupier allows unauthorised people to reside with them)  6. such a fundamental breach of the relationship between the farmer and themselves that it is not possible to restore this relationship. (For examaple: if the farm worker assaults the farmer.)”  (See A Guide to Tenure Security Rights on Farms, pg. 4)

In South Africa, farm dwellers also have the right to due process under the law before they are evicted.  Procedurally, in order for a landowner to legally evict a farmer, the landowner is require to warn the workers and deliver an eviction order to the court.  Any attempts to evict are illegal without the court order.  However, according to HRW, less than 1% of farm worker evictions are done so legally.

According to the HRW report, many landowners have found illegitimate, but unfortunately effective, methods to evict farm dwellers.  By blocking electricity or cutting of the water supply, landowners can easily drive farmworker away.  Others simply allow new workers to move in without providing an eviction notice to the current resident farm worker.  Despite the fact that these eviction methods are illegal, they have become the norm because South African authorities by and large do not enforce the law and landowners in violation of eviction laws are not sanctioned.

As an ESTA inspector explained in the HRW report:

“If I lose my job here today, I still have a place to stay and so does my wife.  If a farmworker loses his job today, he loses his place to stay and so does his family.”

Health and safety concerns

Lack of access to safe and secure housing is not the only hurdle South African farmworkers encounter.  Testimony gathered in HRW reports show that farmworkers also face health and safety threats in the workplace.

According to HRW, most of the farms in Western Cape do not provide drinking water or toilet facilities on or near the fields.  Furthermore, farm workers are regularly exposed to injurious pesticides without proper safety equipment, which causes rashes and even acute intoxication.  Despite the fact that the South African Occupational Health and Safety Act promulgates that workers should be provided with “suitable respiratory protective equipment and protective clothing,” many farm workers in Western Cape continue to be exposed to health hazardous poisons and chemicals.  These farm dwellers allege that they have developed conditions such as asthma and chest pain as a result of direct contact with these pesticides.

Recent developments and responses to HRW’s report

According to a November 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Becoming Truly South African,” Professor Solms, a neuroscientist turned wine maker, explains that the HRW report only represents the minority of South African farmworkers.  He explains, “The most important thing for people in our industry to face up to is that what the Human Rights Watch report describes is happening.  But it is not the norm, nor the average situation. What I would say is that it is a minority. That is not to excuse it. There is no excuse.”

In order to help break the cycle of extreme poverty among farmworkers, Solms, along with Richard Astor, created a trust for their farmworkers, which was funded by the winery’s profits.  The trust pays for housing, education, health care and music lessons for the workers and can be used as a model for other wineries.  (See Becoming Truly South African, Nov. 11, 2011, WSJ.com)

In October 2011, Andries Burger, member of the Cape’s Winemaker’s Guild, told the Financial Times that despite the fact that even one report of human rights abuse against farmworkers is too many,, the HRW’s decision to maintain the anonymity of the wineries in question raises concerns because it does not allow for actions to be taken against wineries that treat their workers poorly.  As Burger explains, “the problem is that not naming the farms in question has been counterproductive, because how can we rectify it? Let’s name and shame, I say.”

According to the Financial Times, HRW’s reasoning for keeping the identity of offending wineries confidential is as follows:

“Human Rights Watch said it did not want to name or locate its informants for fear of reprisals, and would not even specify which of their more horrific reported examples were wine rather than fruit farms. This, unfortunately, has given those too complacent or mean to bring their workers’ living conditions into even the 20th century, as well as the Western Cape government, the perfect excuse for continued inaction.” (See Cleaning Up the Cape, Oct. 21, 2011, The Financial Times)

Finally, Su Birch, CEO of Wines of South Africa, which is responsible for the promotion of all South African wine in export markets, claims that the HRW report is bias.  According to The Guardian, Birch stated that “most of the farm workers interviewed were identified by unions and NGOs, who have a vested interest in presenting the worst of cases.” (See South African wine industry rooted in human misery, says report. The Guardian, Aug. 22, 2011)

While she admits that some farmworkers live in poor conditions, she maintains that it is a small group that is not representative of the entire South African wine industry.

“For every poor house on a farm, I can show you loads of good ones and some exceptional ones. Wine farmers are currently providing housing for over 200,000 workers, which represents an investment of billions of rands. Our industry is working hard to correct the wrongs of the past, and we accept that there is much work to be done. Even one case of abuse is one too many. But ‘ripe with abuse’? I don’t think so.”  (See South African wine industry rooted in human misery, says report. The Guardian, Aug. 22, 2011)

Decide for yourself!  For more information, please read the following:

Becoming Truly South African, The Wall Street Journal, November 2011

South African wine industry rooted in human misery, says report. The Guardian, Aug. 22, 2011

REPORT:  Ripe With Abuse, Human Rights Watch, August 2011

A guide to TENURE SECURITY RIGHTS ON FARMS, Lawyers for Human Rights.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Earlier this month, I was contacted by Amol Mehra, an international human rights attorney and co-founder of Right Respect,  a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a dialogue between businesses, policy makers, and human rights advocates to “ensure that human rights concerns are given the right respect in business activities.”

I was immediately impressed with Mr. Mehra’s work as well as the mission and brilliant vision behind Right Respect – helping companies define internal policies and procedures to make certain that company standards adhere to universally-recognized human rights principles.

The intersection of human rights and business practices

Identifying and promoting the link between human rights and business practices is an important and growing part of the business model and has become more visible in recent years, especially due to the widespread availability of information found on the Internet.

One of the first major international companies to incorporate human rights into its business practices was The Body Shop, a British company, which is the second largest cosmetics company in the world. Over the years, The Body Shop, through its founder Anita Roddick, has proven its dedication to human rights, green standards, and ethical trading practices. This has been accomplished through a variety of initiatives, such as The Code of Conduct for Suppliers, which upholds standards for humane treatment and safe working conditions for workers and provides that no child labor excessive working hours and The Community Trade Program, which creates sustainable trading relationships with developing countries and their local communities

Likewise, boot manufacturer Timberland follows a tangible and strict Code of Conduct that specifically invokes human rights principles and treaties.  “We respect and promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions that establish international human and labor rights…We seek to apply both the letter and the spirit of all applicable local laws and to promote continuous improvement in our operations. We hold our business partners to these same standards and actively seek partners who share our beliefs.” (Preamble, Timberland Code of Conduct)

In a recent article about Timberland’s ethical business practices, Right Respect contributor and Juris Doctor degree candidate at the University of San Francisco School of Law, Shilpa Thakur, explains, “Globalization demands that human rights be extended to everyone. No longer can the developed world rely on its own markets to drive their economies. By implementing a Code of Conduct such as Timberland’s, it is a step towards the installation of human rights and ultimately meaningful, significant and lasting economic growth.”(For more information about Timberland’s ethical business practices, please see “Right Respect Best Practices: Timberland” dated July 29, 2010.)

Right Respect’s model of better business practices – “Doing Well by Doing Good.”

As explained on its website, Right Respect uses a four step approach to identify and address relevant human rights concerns in the business world.  This analysis includes, 1.) Identify the issues, 2.) Explain the legal and policy significance of these issues, 3.) Collaborate with shareholders about these issues and 4.) Progress, in order to create and implement solutions.  

Mr. Mehra currently uses this four step approach in analyzing human rights concerns in several industries, perhaps most notably, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSC), also known as Private Armed Forces or Global Security, which are “legally established international firms offering services that involve the potential to exercise force is a systematic way and by military or paramilitary means, as well as the enhancement, the transfer, the facilitation, the deterrence, or the defusing of this potential, or the knowledge required to implement it, to clients.” (PMSC website).  Mr. Mehra, along with his colleagues at Right Respect and human rights advocacy group, Human Rights Advocates, explains that PMSC actors need to be held accountable for the actions they commit in the course of their employment at an international level.  Specifically, he explains that this can be accomplished through a Convention, or Treaty, much like the Convention Against Mercenaries or The Geneva Convention, which would essentially ”fill in the gaps” that exist in current treaties and as related to PMSC’s. Mr. Mehra also supports the envisioned Committee on the Regulation, Oversight and Monitoring of Private Military and Security Companies, which would act as an accountability mechanism to ensure PMSC compliance with international human rights norms. (For more information, read Mr. Mehra’s article entitled, “Guiding Principles for the Convention on Private Military and Security Companies.”)

In a relatively short span of time, Right Respect has begun to make great strides where human rights meets business. I encourage all of the readers of The Human Rights Blog to visit Right Respect’s website to learn more about this great organization and the talented, young legal minds who comprise the staff. In addition, Mr. Mehra kindly permitted me to post one of his recent articles here on The Human Rights Blog entitled, “Conflict Minerals and Financial Reform – Protecting Human Rights through Disclosure Standards.”  I hope you all will read it with as much interest as I did.

Conflict Minerals and Financial Reform – Protecting Human Rights through Disclosure Standards

Popularity: 3% [?]

In these troubled economic times, both in the US and abroad, more and more individuals have taken to begging or panhandling. With the growing numbers of beggars in Europe, particularly among the Roma, or Europe’s “Gypsies,” Finland’s Ministry of the Interior working group proposed a controversial ban on beggars late last month, which would criminalize those who beg for money in Finland’s streets. The proposed ban comes on the heels of reports indicating that Helsinki’s panhandler population has tripled in the past two years due, in part, to the migration of Romanian and Bulgarian Roma to Finland via Norway. 

Many international human rights advocates tout the begging ban as a step in the right direction towards curbing human trafficking and forced child-begging, which are inextricably linked to begging in Europe. For example, Europe’s GRETA – The Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, supports the ban, explaining that it would allow authorities to initiate investigations as to whether the beggars are working for themselves or victims of exploitation.  Likewise, Finland’s Minister of the Interior, Anne Holmund, cited the link between begging and human trafficking when she recently spoke about Finland’s need for the proposed ban.

“Begging can involve issues such as the exploitation of children or characteristics linked with human trafficking when people are forced to beg. In such cases the matter is much more serious.”

However, not everyone agrees that the criminalization of begging is the proper tool for combating human rights abuses.  Earlier this year, Romanian Ambassador to Finland, Lucian Fatu, told Finland’s largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, that while begging is not acceptable, it is not a crime.  Last week, Tuomas Ojanen, the University of Helsinki’s Professor of Constitutional Law explained that “[m]eans other than a prohibition on begging should be pursued to deal with the human rights issues related to the poverty of, and systematic discrimination against, Roma people.”

Finland is not the first country to attempt the criminalization of begging.  Last year, Bangladesh, which is one of the world’s poorest countries and is, according to a COP15 report, the most vulnerable country to climate change, enacted a begging ban to combat Dhaka’s estimated 100,000 beggars, many of whom are “climate victims.” Last month, the city of Chennai, India also enacted a begging ban, which criminalizes begging but also provides rehabilitative services for those who violate the law.

Here in the United States, well-established legal precedence exists which upholds the constitutionality of begging as a First Amendment freedom.  For example, in the 1990’s when New York City attempted to enforce a state statute that effectively banned begging, the Second Circuit of the US Court of Appeals ruled that begging is communicative activity conveying an individual’s indigency, which falls under the protection of the First Amendment.  That is not to say, however, that all forms of begging are permitted in the United States as the courts clearly allow narrowly-tailored laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling; begging which intimidate or create a hostile environment for pedestrians, tourists, and business patrons.  Though controversial, anti-panhandling legislation is passed frequently in the US, the lastest case of which comes from Seattle where just this spring, anti-panhandling legislation passed in a 5-4 vote, despite sharp criticism from the Seattle Human Rights Commission, the NAACP, the ACLU and Real Change News.  Seattle’s new law makes aggressive panhandling a civil offense punishable by fine or community service and bans aggressive solicitation that involves intimidation.

While anti-begging legislation has seen mixed results in varying degrees, anti-begging campaigns, which do not criminalize begging, have seen success in their efforts to curb human trafficking and forced child labor.  For example, the ”Begging Handicaps my Future” campaign, initiated in August 2008 by Terre des Hommes and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has helped over 400 children in Kosovo escape exploitation as child beggars.  Artur Marku, Head of Mission of the Swiss organization in Kosovo, explained that child beggars do not benefit directly from the money they earn; rather “they give it to their parents or persons who organize the begging. The children come predominantly from the minority Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities.”

Honduras’ capital city of Tegucigalpa also led a successful campaign to rescue children and adolescents from street begging. The Honduran Institute of Childhood and Family, along with the police and the district attorneys locate groups of child beggars and relocate them with families or relatives who promise to uphold the child’s rights.  Parents who force, rent out, or otherwise allow their children to beg are prosecuted.  This system appears to be successful due to the fact that the beggars themselves, here minors, are not criminalized.  Rather, those who exploit the work of the beggars are the ones who are punished under the law.

For more information about the linkage between begging and the human trafficking and abuse of children, I invite you to peruse the following report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), which was written this past spring.  The reports documents the child-beggars in Senegal, known known as talibés, who are systematically forced to beg on Senegal’s streets.

“Off the Backs of the Children” - Forced Begging and Other Abuses against Talibés in Senegal

Popularity: 7% [?]

Water is critical for sustainable development, including environmental integrity and the eradication of poverty and hunger, and is indispensable for human health and well-being.” -  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Recently, Isobel Foulsham, a Master’s degree candidate in Human Rights at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies in London, contacted me to share a unique and enlightening animation she created entitled, “The Human Right to Water – it’s in Our Hands.”  The information conveyed through her animation convinced me that the concept of access to safe water as a human right should be one of widespread global concern and that the right to water should certainly be regarded a distinct human right instead of either being considered a subcategory other human rights or worse, viewed as an economic commodity.

Brief background regarding the right to water in human rights treaties and international law:

When our human rights were formally recognized in 1948 with the adoption of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), access to safe water was not a consideration.  In fact, none of the treaties that comprise the International Bill of Rights (the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or ICCPR, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or ICESCR) expressly recognized the right to water as a human right.

In 1992, the United Nations adopted The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, which classified water as an economic commodity.  In particular, Principle Four states, “[w]ater has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good.”   At its core, The Dublin Statement focused on the right of all people to have access to safe water at an affordable price, thus giving water economic value instead of recognizing access to it as a fundamental right.

It was not until 2002 when the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) interpreted the meaning of Article 11 of the ICESCR to encompass the right to water as opposed to an economic commodity, thus giving the notion some weight in international law.  Specifically, in commemoration of the UN’s International Year of Freshwater, CESCR adopted General Comment 15, which recognizes water as a limited natural resource, a public good fundamental for life and health, and a human right.

“The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights…The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.”  (See General Comment 15, Introduction)

According to the World Water Council, “General Comment 15 was the first document that fleshed out in detail the right’s content and clearly stated that the right to water emanated from and was indispensable for an adequate standard of living as it is one of the most fundamental conditions for survival.”

Still, not all nations view the right to water as an independent, free-standing right.  Rather, many countries continue to interpret the right to water as an element, or subcategory, of other human rights such as the right to life or the right to food and shelter.

For example, in 2007, Great Britain and Northern Ireland submitted a Statement on the Human Right to Water to the UN’s General Assembly, in which they clearly agreed that while all people are entitled to a sufficient amount of safe water, the right to water is “not a free-standing right in customary international law.  Nor is it derived from other rights, such as the right to life.”  The Statement goes on to explain that the right to water is, rather, “an element of the ‘right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family.” (As in regards to Art. 11 of the ICESCR)

The Right to Water from a Christian Perspective

As we know, many of the moral concepts behind human rights often run parallel with the teachings of Christianity.  Take, for example, Article 1 of the UDHR which states:

“[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

The world’s two most powerful Christian leaders, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, leader of 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians and Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church, have been strong proponents for right to water to be treated as a fundamental human right and have spoken openly about the subject.

Patriarch Bartholomew, a world-renown champion of the environment, made numerous statements over the years concerning the right to water as a human right.  For example, in 2004 he wrote, “[w]e must accept the indiscriminate and inalienable right to water for all people in the world. Water can never be reduced to a marketable commodity for profit – especially for the affluent, especially for the few.  It must always be protected as part of the fundamental quality of life – especially for the more vulnerable, especially for our children.” (See Champions of the Earth – United Nations Environment Programme)

In 2006, the World Council of Churches adopted a Statement on Water for Life, stating that “water is a symbol for life.  The Bible affirms water as the cradle of life, an expression of God’s grace in perpetuity for the whole of creation (Gen 2:5) and that “access to water is indeed a basic human right.”

In July 2008, Pope Benedict XVI declared that all people have a right to water based on dignity of the human person and that water should not be viewed as an economic good.  In his message to the international exposition on Water and Sustainable Development in Spain, the Pope explained that the right to water has “religious meanings that believing humanity, especially Christianity, have developed, assigning it great value as a precious immaterial good, which always enriches man’s life on this earth.”

UN International Decade for Action, 2005 – 2015 :  Water for Life

In recent years, the United Nations has taken a proactive approach in towards the widespread acceptance of the classification of the right to water as a human right, especially in light of the fact that today, “over one billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion lack access to safe sanitation.”  (See World Health Organization)

Recognizing the global need for safer, cleaner water and sanitation, the UN’s General Assembly proclaimed 2005-2015 to be the International Decade for Action:  Water for Life, emphasizing that ”water is critical for sustainable development, including environmental integrity and the eradication of poverty and hunger, and is indispensable for human health and well-being.” (See UN Resolution 58/217)

In 2008, the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)’s passed Resolution 7/22, which determined that providing access to clean drinking water is “central to living a life in dignity” and is, indeed, a fundamental human right.  That same year, the UN appointed Catarine de Albuquerque, a Portuguese lawyer and senior legal adviser at the Office for Documentation and Comparative Law in Portugal, as the UN’s Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation.  In this role, Ms. Albuquerque visits countries hit hardest by unsafe sanitation and provides reports and recommendations on how best the UN can tackle this country-specific problem using a human rights-based approach.  Ms. Albuquerque visited Slovenia this past week (April 19-23) to examine water quality, sanitation, including wastewater treatment, and affordability of water and sanitation services in the country.  (As of April 27, 2010, her findings have not yet been publicized, but I will add her finding to this article as they are available.)

Author’s update:  Please see Statement by the United Nations Expert on Human Rights, Water and Sanitation (Visit to Slovenia, 24-28 May 2010) by Catarina de Albuquerque dated May 29, 2010.

The United States’ stance on the right to water

Despite widespread support for the right to water as a free-standing human right, the United States continues to resist this classification.

During the 2009 World Water Forum, the United States’ delegation firmly stated that “there is at present no internationally agreed right to water or human right to water, and there is no consensus on what such a right would encompass.”  State Department spokesman Andy Laine told the Forum that “[t]he United States does not oppose any government adopting a national right to water or sanitation as part of its own domestic policy. We do, however, have concerns with a statement that would require all countries to adopt a national right to water or sanitation or would establish an international right to water or sanitation.”

The human right to water remains a controversial and widely discussed topic in international human rights law.  That said, I encourage all the readers of The Human Rights Blog to consider the right to water from both a moral and legal perspective, and to watch Ms. Foulsham’s animation above.

For more information about this topic, please read the following:

The Right to Water by The World Health Organization

Official Website of World Water Day, which was March 22

World Water Day on Facebook

About the Animation:

For “behind the scenes” information about Isobel Foulsham’s video, please read her article, “In our hands – the human right to water.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

This Sunday marks the start of the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World, during which over 1,000 delegates will review The Ottawa Treaty, otherwise known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, or simply The Mine Ban Treaty. With the review conference and President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony just days away, the Obama Administration deemed it an appropriate time to announce its decision to join human rights bastions like China, Pakistan, Cuba, and Myanmar, in its refusal to support The Mine Ban Treaty.   158 other countries endorse the Treaty, including every other country in the Western Hemisphere (minus Cuba) and all our NATO allies.  The decision was made in a brief, closed-door State Department session and no official reasons have since been offered.

The Mine Ban Treaty bans the construction and development of all AP landmines.  State Parties must also promise to destroy all their AP landmines within four years, provide annual transparency reports and offer victim assistance for those devastated by landmine explosions. The Covenant’s inception was inspired by Princess Diana’s 1997 visits to Angola and Bosnia, where she was famously photographed wearing a helmet and ballistic jacket while walking through mine fields.  At the time, Angola had more than one landmine per Angolan citizen, or 10 million land mines, buried in the country while Bosnia had an estimated 750,000.  As a result of Princess Diana’s work and The Mine Ban Treaty, more than 2.2 million AP landmines have been removed worldwide in the past decade.

The United States’ refusal to ratify The Mine Ban Treaty seems a strange turn, even for an Administration that has, thus far, straddled the fence in their approach to human rights. The fact that President Obama intends to send an observer to Cartagena was viewed by most as a positive indication of the United States’ intended support of the Treaty.  Moreover, since the United States has not produced or used an AP landmine in over a decade, and since nearly all of the United States’ allies support the Treaty, it is particularly puzzling that the State Department’s only explanations for this decision are conflicts with current national defense needs and US security commitments.

If the Obama Administration truly wants the world to believe that human rights is, indeed, an “essential element of American global foreign policy,” as Secretary of State Clinton said earlier this year, the Administration must break free of the human rights routine of former President Bush and take substantive steps towards protecting the world’s citizens. The first step could have been an easy one; ratifying a covenant that the United States already follows. How sad that such a perfect opportunity was missed.  Perhaps a second review of The Mine Ban Treaty is necessary not only in Cartagena, but in Washington as well.

Has this post sparked your interest?  Read more at:

The Nobel Peace Prize’s International Campaign to Ban Landmines

The Miss Landmine Beauty Pageant

UNICEF – Landmines pose a particular threat to children

Popularity: 2% [?]