Iconic Israeli poet invokes Jesus in latest book

It is difficult to be certain why Haim Gouri uses New Testament motifs in his latest book of poems, entitled Eyval, named after Mount Ebal (Deut. 11:29).

Gouri is an iconic figure in Israeli culture - the personification of the ideal Israeli. Born in Tel Aviv in 1923, he joined the Palmach militia and was sent to Hungary in 1947 to assist survivors of the Holocaust making their way to Palestine. During the 1948 Israeli War of Independence he served as a deputy company commander in the Palmach’s Negev Brigade. Gouri studied literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Sorbonne in Paris. As a journalist he worked for Lamerhav and later, Davar. He achieved fame with his coverage of the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann Gouri lives with his wife, Aliza, in Jerusalem.

Although perhaps best known as a poet, Gouri is also a novelist, filmmaker, and journalist. Eyval is a rebuttal of the prevalent tendency amongst so many Israelis to indulge in condemnation of their mother country. “Since…every leper opens up his mouth to frighten her,” Gouri “writes her glory and splendor, counts like a peddler her glories, [and] grinds Balm of Gilead, healing and remedy for her sorrows and illness” (Poem 59).
And in Poem 86, he quotes Jesus Himself: “Who amongst you has not sinned, let him be the first to throw stones at her.”

In Eyval, Gouri dialogues with the Messiah who endlessly tarries. In Poem 23, he seems to identify the Messiah as Jesus and commands Him as a military commander—much like God commanded Abraham before Him: “Move, move over. Get out by night to your land, to your family, through the stone, through the tiredness, through the silence and the shadow of death. Move, move as in a dream of the night. Remember that you have already been here, with the [crown of] thorns that have already became a familiar literary symbol that never lose their greatness.”

While one can understand this poem in various ways, the reader must face Gouri’s need to command Jesus to return immediately to His land and family.

How the Jews Treat Christians in Israel?

St. Anthony of Padua: 780-yr-old relic stolen

780-year-old religious relic of St. Anthony of Padua has been stolen, and parishioners at a Southern California Catholic church are praying to the patron saint of lost items and missing persons for its speedy return.
The relic was stolen from inside a cabinet beside the altar at St. Anthony Catholic Church in Long Beach on Monday, the feast day of the church’s namesake.
The Rev. Jose Magana said he decided to bring out the relic this year, on the 780th anniversary of the death of St. Anthony, because many of his parishioners have lost hope in the rough economy.
Magana said the relic is invaluable and deeply symbolic to his parish. “It’s our history, so it’s irreplaceable,” Magana said. “It belongs to the church, not just the church here in Long Beach, but the entire Catholic church.”
The church opened at 6 a.m., and when Magana turned to the relic during the 9 a.m. Mass, it had disappeared. Magana could hear his parishioners gasp when they realised it was gone, but he continued with the service and called police immediately afterward. Long Beach police Lt. Paul Arcala said the relic is housed in a 16-inch (40-centimeter) tall reliquary case with angel-shaped handles made of gold and silver on either side. He declined to describe it further because that might jeopardize the investigation.

Human Rights Watch Neutrality Questioned in Iraqi Kurdistan

The government and a number of journalists criticized the neutrality of Human Rights Watch (HRW) correspondents in Kurdistan Region, even though they emphasize the necessity of international watchdogs in the Region to monitor human rights and freedom.

In the recent months, as Kurdistan Region witnessed anti-government protests, HRW published a number of reports specifically or partially covering human rights violations in the Region. The reports, particularly the one published on May 24, elicited many different reactions, either welcoming or criticizing the report.

To some observers, including the Kurdistan Regional Government, the report contained biased and unconfirmed information unflattering to the KRG.

Although KRG takes these reports "seriously" and studies them, "some of them are far from truth," said Falah Mustafa Bakir, head of the KRG Department of Foreign Relations.

Bakir had previously written letter to the HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth on June 5 in which he expressed the KRG's appreciation for the organization's efforts in improving human rights while also offering a critique.

"We must take issue with some of the comments in the May 24 statement, and we feel that the lack of substantiation for some of your accusations undermines HRW's reputation as one of the world's leading international human rights organizations," Bakir wrote in the letter.

The KRG official's concern centers on two issues: the HRW's report "Iraqi Kurdistan: Growing Effort to Silence Media" was biased toward the Suleimaniya-based Livin magazine, which it described as "one of Iraqi Kurdistan's leading independent publications." Bakir's letter replies: "However, their independence is questionable at best, they have a clear anti-ruling party bias."

The report talks about lawsuits by the governing parties' (Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) top officials against Livin's Executive Editor Ahmed Mira because his magazine published a report saying KDP and PUK leaders were planning to assassinate three opposition party leaders.

"Such libel suits by Kurdistan government officials are nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to punish critics and create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship," says HRW's Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa Department.

Bakir defends the KRG officials' right to file the lawsuits by saying: "While it may be difficult for citizens of the long-established and stable countries of the West to imagine what damage an article like this can do to the credibility of a politician in the developing world, even in the West there are legal standards by which journalists and media outlets must abide." He complained the Livin report was based on a single, anonymous source.

The KRG and other observers, other major complaint was about a quote from Whitson where she compares Kurdistan Region rulers to the Baath regime.

She is quoted as saying: "The Kurdistan Regional Government promised a new era of freedom for Iraqi Kurds, but it seems no more respectful of Kurdish rights to free speech than the government that preceded it."

The KRG says it and the Kurdistan people were insulted and offended by this sentence and it made them doubt "whether HRW's purpose is to actually help the human rights situation in the Kurdistan Region, or simply to offend its leadership and its people," Bakir's said in his letter.

"I'm not certain exactly what they have been smoking at Human Rights Watch, or who their field investigators have naively listened to, but this kind of offensive absurdity from a respected international human rights organization needs a response," said David Romano in his weekly column for the Erbil-based Rudaw newspaper.

Romano's column was quoted by The Atlantic writer Jeffery Goldberg in his column, "Human Rights Watch's Upside-Down View of the World." He agreed with the premise that the HRW "seems to dislike Iraqi Kurds in much the same way it dislikes Israelis."

Another point that hints of bias from HRW is its report on minorities in Nineveh from November 2009. Khaled Sulaiman, executive editor of the Suleimaniya-based Haftana (Weekly) magazine expressed his astonishment at why HRW placed blame on the Iraqi Kurds for considering Shabaks and Yazidis as a part of the Kurdish people.

"When did this organization begin to consider the roots of ethnic groups and to ask the government and authorities to stop labeling one group or another as Kurds, Arabs or Turkmen?" questions Sulaiman. He said the report was also biased as it was based on interviews with Arab leaders in Mosul and the report reflects their point of view on the whether the Shabaks and Yazidis are Kurds.

However, Sulaiman sees it as a normal and positive step for international organizations to publish frequent reports on the Region, "as long as they are credible." The area and its situation encourage organizations concerned about human rights and freedom. "But the major problem [here] is the current mess of the Kurdish media," more than freedom of expression, he believes.

Sulaiman's sheds light on two points that were a problem for Kurdish journalists. "The Kurdish security agencies realize the journalists, attempts to publish information about corruption and deficiencies would serve their enemies. But it serves the community and its development."

His other comment is on journalists who "act as executives and believe they have the absolute freedom to take pictures, write and publish. They also mix journalism as a profession and political activities, journalists have become civil and social activists, he is an executive editor today, and tomorrow he will be a member of parliament."

"I don't say the organization [HRW] deliberately aimed this at the Kurdistan Regional Government, but those working for it in Kurdistan lack professionalism and objectivity, which means they don't follow the standards of their organization but are swayed by Kurdish media," noted Sulaiman.

Egypt's Christians Fear Post-Mubarak Era

Large numbers of Copts supported the Egyptian revolution, but they now fear that a recent escalation in violence and discrimination is only likely to worsen following likely Islamist victories at the polls this autumn.

A mass Christian exodus from Egypt, similar to the one that took place in Iraq, seems almost inevitable.

This February saw separate brutal attacks against two Coptic monasteries -- the Anba Bishoy Monastery in Wadi Al-Natroun, 110 kilometres north of Cairo, and the Anba Makarious Al Sakandarie Monastery in Al Fayoum, 130 kilometres south west of the capital.

On March 4, angry crowds burned down the Coptic church of St Mina and St George - together with its irreplaceable relics - in the village of Sool, about 30 km from Cairo.

Then on March 8, a mob armed with guns, clubs, and Molotov cocktails attacked a group of Copts who were demonstrating against the Sool church burning in front of the state television broadcasting building in Cairo.

The Egyptian army, called in to restore order, instead used more violence. Some 13 people were killed and over 100 wounded.

On May 7, two more churches were attacked and at least 12 people were killed and more than 200 wounded in the poor, largely Christian neighbourhood of Imbaba, in north-west Cairo.

Islamists, incited by a rumour of a Muslim woman held captive by Copts, stormed the St Mina Church, burned the Church of the Virgin Mary to the ground, looted and vandalised several Christian-owned shops, and threw Molotov cocktails at an apartment building.

Other attacks have included one on a Coptic man, Ayman Anwar Mitri, who had his ear cut off by suspected Islamic extremists in Qena, and there have also been reports of the kidnapping and rape of Coptic girls.

We believe that Salafists are to blame for most of these incidents and that the inacton of law enforcers - not a single person has been convicted in any of the incidents mentioned above - is allowing the people to do whatever they want.

I think that some of the country's more radical Islamists, including Salafists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, MB, are using violence to establish Egypt's identity as a thoroughly Islamicised and Arabicised state.

The Salafists were never interested in political participation previously, but now they have started playing a more active role, pushing themselves onto the political scene in a very vulgar way. They are not as strong as the MB but they are trying to form an alliance with them.

And at least with the Salafists you get what you see -- the problem with the MB is that they speak very sweetly about respecting all religions and people's rights, but there is absolutely zero trust in them from the Christian communit y, and they are also criticised fiercely by liberal Muslims.

It is hard to predict how successful the MB will be in elections later this year. From listening to their own propaganda , one would imagine they would win 90 per cent of the vote, but experts have put their predicted share as low as 15 per cent, with a recent poll giving them even less. But the fear is still there.

The church plays a very powerful role in the daily lives of Egyptian Christians, although it has so far held out against any official political participation. But some Copts are getting involved in liberal political parties, most notably the Free Egyptians party founded by businessman Naguib Sawiris, and working alongside liberal Muslims.

On the face of it, people are tolerant, but below the surface it is very different. You see this on Friday around prayer time, when the imams often broadcast very anti-Christian messages. This has been going on forever and the authorities have never done anything about it. Indeed , Mubarak managed to exploit the fear of Islamic fundamentalism to get the support of the Christians during his regime.

The greatest challenge we face is building a culture of tolerance, and it may take decades. Copts are worried about the influence that the Salafists have on previously neutral, but poorly educated Muslim citizens -- a legacy of Mubarak's decrepit education system. But at the very least, confronting sectarianism needs to become a priority that extends beyond the facades of newly-painted churches.

Officially all the Christian sects make up some ten per cent of Egypt's 80 million population. But the church itself says that there are at least 12 million Christians, and they have very reliable statistics through the registration of all births and marriages. There are also at least two million Egyptians Copts resident in the West, and it looks like this number is going to rise sharply.

After the burning of churches and other attacks Christians feel in danger. The British-based Copts website I run has been deluged with enquiries from Egyptian Copts about how to apply for asylum outside, and Copts have been queuing up at embassies in Egypt to try and emigrate. In Iraq after the war, at least 50 per cent of the Christians left the country in the face of sectarian violence. I hope we will not see a repeat of this in Egypt.

Hearing Addresses Inmate Conversions to "Prislam"

Los Angeles police have several active investigations involving radicalized prison converts, a commanding officer with the LAPD told a House committee hearing Wednesday.

"We have ongoing cases that involve convert prison radicals that are out in the community now," LAPD Deputy Chief Michael Downing told the House Homeland Security Committee.

The hearing, "The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons," was the second called by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to address radicalization within the Muslim American community. The first, held in March, included testimony of two family members of radicalized Muslims.

Wednesday's hearing focused on the threat from "Prislam," which Downing described as an extremist "cut and paste" version of Islam practiced by inmates. The resulting ideology is what former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Smith said he saw in some New Folsom prison inmates whom he prosecuted for plotting to attack Jewish targets in Los Angeles and the LAX airport.

Smith testified that Folsom inmate Kevin James created the radical prison group Jam'iyyat Ul-islam Is-Saheeh (JIS) in 1997. JIS supported the killing of Jews and the implementation of an Islamic government in the United States. James recruited a fellow inmate named Levar Washington, who recruited two others upon his release, including an LAX employee, to assist with the terror plots.

"From the prison [Kevin James] was able to set up and set out an operation cell of would be jihadists on the streets of Southern California," said Smith. "James set up a system where he would send the protocol to mail on the outside."

The person on the outside would send the protocol back to inmates inside other prisons, spreading the JIS ideology.

Several factors contribute to inmate conversions to "Prislam," witnesses testified, including the accessibility of radical literature inside prison walls and prison chaplains who espouse radical beliefs.

Downing noted that the works of radical al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood scholar and al-Qaida inspiration Sayyid Qutb can be found in prisons.

"I would not be surprised to find a copy of al-Qaida's Inspire magazine in any prison," said Patrick Dunleavy, who retired after 25 years working in the New York State prison system as its deputy inspector. Dunleavy, author of the forthcoming book, The Fertile Soil of Jihad: Terrorism's Prison Connection, also said that literature has been sent directly from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to New York State prisons.

Dunleavy's testimony emphasized the need for stricter chaplain vetting processes. He cited Imam Warith Deen Umar, former head of the New York State prisons' Muslim chaplain program, who has called the Holocaust punishment for Jews "because they were serially disobedient to Allah" and preached that Muslims should "be prepared to fight, be prepared to die, be prepared to kill." Umar called the 9/11 hijackers martyrs and heroes and has since been banned from New York State prisons.

"[Radicalization] often matures and deepens after the release," Dunleavy said, pointing to the case of four men who plotted to bomb a N.Y. synagogue and shoot missiles at U.S. military planes. The men, two of whom converted to Islam while in prison, did not know each other while incarcerated, said Dunleavy, but met each other in a mosque connected to Umar.

The four were convicted in October on charges related to the plot. Three of the defendants are set to be sentenced later this month.

Even if all chaplains were properly vetted, inmates could still spread radical versions of Islam, Dunleavy said. Sometimes, inmates will elect their own imam to supersede the authority of a government-appointed chaplain. Similarly, Smith reminded the committee that "the prison system is not in the position to say you can't preach your version of Islam to your fellow inmates."

Dunleavy's testimony echoed points made in a 2010 FBI Bulletin. "Prisoners with little training in Islam have asserted themselves as leaders among the prison population, at times misrepresenting the faith," it stated.

Witnesses and committee members spent much of the question and answer session debating the merits of the hearing's focus. Democrats criticized its focus on a specific religion and raised the specter of threats from a variety of other prison gangs.

"How many of the street gangs have an ideology that is dedicated to the destruction of the United States?" asked Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Cal. "None," witnesses replied.

"A gang member is interested in enriching themselves personally," Smith said, while jihadists are ideologically motivated to commit violence to terrorize the public.

"Prislam" is doubly dangerous, Smith said. "The jihadist mentality is basically overlaid on an individual who knows how to operate weapons," he said.

Wednesday's criticism from Democratic House members and some in the Muslim American community echoed complaints about the first radicalization hearing in March.

King defended the focus on Muslim radicalization in his opening remarks.

"The danger remains real and present, especially because of al-Qaida's announced intention to intensify attacks within the United States," he said.

King then cited a report by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., which said, "Three dozen U.S. citizens who converted to Islam while in prison have traveled to Yemen, possibly for al-Qaida training."

Several House members questioned the scope of Wednesday's hearing. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Tex., asked the panel whether Christians are capable of radicalization. "Anyone that goes about killing in the name of God is an ideologue," Dunleavy responded. "I don't know that Christian militants have foreign country backing," he added.

"What I disagree with is the scope of this committee only focusing on one particular group," said Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Cal., calling the focus "racist" and "discriminatory." King fired back, noting that Democrats controlled the Homeland Security Committee for four years but never sought hearings on radicalization involving other groups.

Even Purdue Sociology Professor Bert Useem, who testified that prisons have not served as a major source of jihad radicalization, agreed that "jihadists are the most dangerous … They are out to damage the country," he said.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking Democrat on the committee, suggested that prison radicalization isn't a problem at all, saying only two examples have been connected to Islamist prison radicalization. "Our greatest threat is from lone wolves and solitary actors," he said. "We are not in danger from people who are already locked up."

But other participants in Wednesday's hearing emphasized that radicalization behind bars is indeed a problem. "It's a very serious issue that I don't think we yet know the scope of," said Smith. "We do have a problem. Prisons are communities at risk," Downing concluded his testimony.

Joe Molyneux, who retired last year from the FBI New Orleans office's intelligence program, agrees. Molyneux responded directly to a statement Thompson released last week, which claimed that "the facts have proven that prison radicalization is an unfounded fear in America."

"I am not sure where Congressman Bennie Thompson is coming from," he told Investigative Project on Terrorism. "It is real and is happening," Molyneux said. At least one agent in all FBI field offices serves as a liaison with area prison wardens to collect information on Islamic radicalization in the prisons.

Source : http://www.investigativeproject.org/2977/hearing-addresses-inmate-conversions-to-prislam

The Role of the United States in Southern Sudan’s Referendum

On January 9, southern Sudanese voted for their independence from the government in Khartoum. In the days leading up to the referendum, the international community feared delay, bloodshed, or the complete breakdown of the peace process. Few expected the referendum to take place on time and as peacefully as it did.

While Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has recognized the outcome, Southern Sudan’s relationship with Khartoum is volatile, and many issues remain unresolved. The United States has played a crucial role in the peace process and should continue a high level of engagement in the future. This includes assisting Juba in the areas of development, holding the government in the South to high governing standards, and closely monitoring actions in the North.

A Country Divided

Since gaining independence from Great Britain in 1956, Sudan has suffered nearly constant conflict. Violent clashes between the armed forces of Sudan’s government in Khartoum and rebel groups in the south are believed to have resulted in the loss of 2 million southern Sudanese lives. Since seizing office in 1989, Bashir has been responsible for the extreme marginalization of southern Sudanese, giving preferential treatment to northerners in areas such as education, employment, and housing. Furthermore, the U.S. has accused Bashir of genocide in the western region of Darfur.

With assistance from the international community and strong backing from the U.S., the government of Sudan and the Sudan’s People Liberation Movement/Army officially ended the civil war with the signing of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), in which the U.S. played a lead role.

January’s referendum on southern independence is the most recent and one of the last phases in the peace process. Also mandated by the CPA is a referendum determining the legal geographic status of the Abyei region on the border between northern and southern Sudan. This was supposed to take place at the same time as the referendum on southern independence, but owing to disagreements on voter eligibility, the Abyei referendum was postponed.

After initially taking less interest in Sudan than his predecessor, President Obama embraced the referendum process in September 2010. At the United Nations, he strongly urged the referendum to proceed as planned. Since then, the Administration has increased its engagement with both the North and South governments and has pledged to work closely with both in the future. One of the methods employed by the Administration, according U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration, is offering “cookies and gold stars”[1] to the government in Khartoum in return for its cooperation in the referendum process.

Despite Khartoum’s unreliable track record at the negotiating table and its possible support of terrorist organizations, President Obama has proposed resuming diplomatic relations with the North and removing it from the state sponsors of terrorism list.

Remaining Challenges

After 99 percent of southern Sudanese voted for independence in the referendum, jubilation quickly spread across the south. However, many challenges remain, including the tackling of such divisive issues as oil revenue sharing, citizenship, and apportioning Sudan’s debt. Southern Sudan must also overcome the challenges of poverty and poor infrastructure.

The most difficult of these challenges will be determining the how the two countries will work together to share Sudan’s oil wealth. This drives conflicts in the oil-rich region of Aybei as well as five additional disputed oil regions along the North–South border. The Northern economy is heavily dependent on the Southern oil supply, and Khartoum is determined to maintain control of as much of the oil wealth as possible. This puts Juba in a difficult position, as it is in danger of losing precious revenue needed for development. For its part, the South has little choice but to use pipelines that traverse the North if it wishes to sell its oil—a weakness that Khartoum is sure to use to its advantage.

To make a complicated situation even worse, the Southern government recently suspended oil negotiations with Khartoum. Southern Sudanese President Salva Kiir accused the North of funding militias that have escalated violence in Abyei and Upper Nile. Juba is now looking to alternative measures, such as halting the export of oil and establishing different transport routes, which could take years to build.[2]

The Road to Independence

Sudan’s many challenges underscore the significant role the U.S. must play in the peace process. The Administration is working with Juba and Khartoum to ensure that the South develops the capacity to become an independent state and that the North does not seek to undermine the South’s pursuit of self-determination.

In order to achieve this, the Obama Administration should take the following steps:

• Assist development of the South. Without broad international assistance and steady oil revenue, Southern Sudan could easily devolve into a failed state. The U.S. should seek to address Southern Sudan’s daunting infrastructure and development challenges. More important, the U.S. should focus on helping Southern Sudanese to be self-sufficient, particularly in agriculture, thus boosting long-term prospects for sustainable economic and social development.
• Hold Juba accountable for good governance. The U.S. should hold the government of Southern Sudan to standards that embrace democracy and human rights. Many African rebel movements fail to uphold democratic standards of governance once they are in power. Juba must not be given any free passes by the U.S. or the international community.
• Keep eyes on Khartoum. Washington should ensure that Khartoum negotiates with Juba in good faith and does not manipulate the negotiation process through stalling tactics, as it has repeatedly done in the past. The Obama Administration should also press Khartoum to end violence in Darfur and work to rebuild the region.
• Assist in writing constitutions for the North and the South. According to the CPA, new constitutions will need to be written in both the North and the South. The U.S. and the international community should assist in shaping both so that they embrace representative, accountable government and protect basic human rights.
• Reevaluate incentives offered to the North. The Obama Administration has offered a number of incentives to Khartoum for its cooperation in the peace process, including the removal of Sudan from the state sponsors of terrorism list. This is a hasty and presumptuous offer, considering that it is not certain whether Khartoum has ended its support for the Lord’s Resistance Army.[3]

Starting Out on the Right Foot

On July 9, the interim period for Southern Sudan will come to a close and a new country will be born. There is much to do in the way of addressing the unresolved issues and even less time to do it. The U.S. should continue its leadership and urge the international community to take part in ensuring that the world’s newest country starts out on the right foot.

Morgan L. Roach is a Research Associate in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Davis Institute, at The Heritage Foundation. The authors are grateful to Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Thatcher Center, for his assistance in preparing this paper.

Source :  
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/03/The-Role-of-the-United-States-in-Southern-Sudans-Referendum

China’s Guantanamo Bay For Buddhist Monks of Kirti

 

All right-thinking persons of the world have spoken for a decade against the military detention centre set up by the US in the Guantanamo Bay area of Cuba for detaining and interrogating all Al Qaeda suspects arrested in different parts of the world. There have been many views on the legitimacy of this centre. There have been many criticisms of its inhumanity.

2. No one is talking of the new Guantanamo Bay type military detention centre which has reportedly been set up by the Chinese authorities under the supervision of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to interrogate and subject to so-called legal education an estimated 300 Buddhist monks— young and old.

3. They are not Al Qaeda suspects. They are not terrorism suspects. They are not ordinary criminals who have committed murder, rape or any other common law crime.

4. They are just religious people who have remained steadfast in their adherence to the Buddhist religion and in their support and loyalty to his Holiness the Dalai Lama. Their only crime was to refuse to eat in solidarity with a 16-year-old monk who committed self-immolation on March 16 last to protest against the Chinese colonisation of Tibet. He belonged to the famous Kirti monastery in the Aba County in the Aba Tibetan-Qiang Autonomous Prefecture of the Sichuan province.

5. Since then, the Chinese authorities of the Ministry of Public Security have started a demonization campaign against 300 monks of the monastery who expressed their solidarity with the young monk. They have been accused of various petty crimes such as visiting prostitutes or inviting prostitutes into the monastery.

6. Initially, the Chinese authorities had them confined in the monastery, reduced their daily rations and forced them to attend so-called re-education classes. When they could not break the protest movement of the monks, they reportedly shifted them to a special military detention centre that they have set up in the Sichuan province.

7. At least so long as they were detained in the monastery itself, the world was getting some news of them, but since they were shifted to the military detention centre the flow of information has come down. International human rights activists have been treating these monks as missing persons and asking the Chinese for more information on them. They are demanding that human rights activists should be allowed to visit the detention centre and meet the monks. The Chinese have refused to allow any humanitarian visit as provided for under international humanitarian laws.

8. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei claimed on June 8 that there had been no “enforced disappearances” at the Kirti monastery. He said the local authorities had taken some monks for “legal education”.

9.The same day, UN officials asked China for details of the whereabouts of the monks. “We encourage the authorities to undertake full investigations into the ongoing practice of enforced disappearances,” said a statement from the UN’s working group on enforced disappearances.

10.But in his weekly news conference, Mr Hong told journalists that no such thing was happening in the monastery. “The relevant local authorities are conducting legal education for the Kirti monastery monks in order to maintain religious order there. There was no question of forced disappearances,” he said. Mr Hong added that “relevant organisations” should “abandon bias and be objective and fair”.

11. In the meanwhile, there are indications that the protest movement by the monks has spread to the Kardze (in Chinese, Ganzi) region, including Kardze town. No details are available.

12. The Chinese authorities have imposed such an effective control on the use of the Internet by the Tibetans that much information is not coming out through micro-blogging. While the rest of the world is benefiting from the relaxation of restrictions and the greater transparency as a result of the Jasmine Revolution sweeping across West Asia and Africa, the Chinese have denied these benefits to the Tibetans and their monks. They have sought to crush the Tibetan jasmine even before it can bloom.

13. It is time for the world to raise its voice and demand more information on the Chinese military detention centre and its Buddhist inmates.

HIV/AIDS and Human Rights

HIV continues to spread throughout the world, shadowed by increasing challenges to human rights, at both national and global levels. The virus continues to be marked by discrimination against population groups: those who live on the fringes of society or who are assumed to be at risk of infection because of behaviors, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or social characteristics that are stigmatized in a particular society. In most of the world, discrimination also jeopardizes equitable distribution of access to HIV-related goods for prevention and care, including drugs necessary for HIV/AIDS care and the development of vaccines to respond to the specific needs of all populations, in both the North and South. As the number of people living with HIV and with AIDS continues to grow in nations with different economies, social structures, and legal systems, HIV/AIDS-related human rights issues are not only becoming more apparent, but also becoming increasingly diverse.

This chapter begins by examining the focus during the 1980s on the human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS, which shaped the initial understanding of the AIDS and human rights relationship. It analyzes how this focus led to recognition of the applicability of international law to HIV/AIDS and from there to increased understanding of the importance of human rights as a factor in determining people's vulnerability to HIV infection. The chapter then outlines a framework for analyzing human rights and HIV/AIDS, centered on the concept of vulnerability. The final section focuses on the specific human rights responsibilities of governments in the context of HIV/AIDS and includes a framework for monitoring government action.

Recognition of the Relationship Between Human Rights and HIV/AIDS transparent image
In the 1980s, the relationship between HIV/AIDS and human rights was only understood as it involved people infected with HIV and with AIDS and the discrimination to which they were subjected.(1) For HIV-infected people and people with AIDS, the concerns included mandatory HIV testing; restrictions on international travel; barriers to employment and housing, access to education, medical care, and/or health insurance; and the many issues raised by names reporting, partner notification, and confidentiality. These issues are grave, and almost 20 years into the epidemic, they have not been resolved. In some ways, the situation has become even more complicated, as old issues appear in new places or present themselves in new or different ways. For example, in certain settings, access to employment has continued to be routinely denied to people infected with HIV. Even in places where this situation has improved, HIV-infected individuals now run the risk of finding themselves excluded from workplace health insurance schemes, with considerable impact on their health and, therefore, on their capacity to work. There are also new issues, with tremendous human rights implications, that have been raised for HIV-infected people, in particular the large and growing disparities and inequities regarding access to antiretroviral therapies and other forms of care.(2)

The 1980s were extremely important in defining some of the connections between HIV/AIDS and human rights. By the end of the decade, the call for human rights and for compassion and solidarity with people living with HIV/AIDS had been explicitly embodied in the first WHO global response to AIDS.(3) This approach was motivated by moral outrage but also by the recognition that protection of human rights was a necessary element of a worldwide public-health response to the emerging epidemic.

The implications of this call were far-reaching. By framing this public health strategy in human rights terms, it became anchored in international law, thereby making governments and intergovernmental organizations publicly accountable for their actions toward people living with HIV/AIDS. The groundbreaking contribution of this era lies in the recognition of the applicability of international law to HIV/AIDS-and therefore to the ultimate responsibility and accountability of the state under international law for issues relating to health and well-being.(4)

What Are Human Rights?
Human rights are broadly concerned with defining the relationship between individuals and the state. International human rights law dictates that governments should not do things such as torture people, imprison them arbitrarily, or invade their privacy. Governments should, however, ensure that all people in a society have shelter, food, medical care, and basic education. The concept of human rights has a long history, but the modern human rights movement dates back about 50 years to when the promotion of human rights was set out as one of the purposes and principles of the newly created United Nations.

The key human rights document and the cornerstone of the modern human rights movement is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is a common aspirational document, by and for governments, about what rights should exist for all people everywhere. The UDHR was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 10, 1948. A number of international human rights treaties exist that further elaborate the rights set out in the UDHR, including:

    the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
    the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
    the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
    the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Each of these documents lays out legally binding obligations for the governments that sign on to them. Countries that become party to international human rights treaties accept certain procedures and responsibilities, including periodic submission of reports on their compliance with the substantive provisions of the texts to international monitoring bodies.

Health and government responsibility for health in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemics is codified in these documents in several ways. In almost all of them, the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health appears in some form. Even more importantly, nearly every article of every document has clear implications for health and for HIV/AIDS. Everything from the rights to information and association to the rights to social security or to the benefits of scientific progress and its applications has clear implications for HIV/AIDS and for the work of public health.

Conceptual Framework: Interaction between HIV/AIDS and Human Rights
The strong focus in the 1980s on the human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS also helped lead to increased understanding in the 1990s of the importance of human rights as a factor in determining people's vulnerability to HIV infection and their consequent risk of acquiring HIV infection as well the probability of their accessing appropriate care and support.(5) The interaction between HIV/AIDS and human rights is most often illustrated through the impact on the lives of individuals of neglect, denial, and violation of their rights in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This applies, albeit in different ways, to women, men, and children infected with, affected by, and vulnerable to HIV.

People infected with HIV may suffer from violations of their rights when, for example, they face government-condoned marginalization and discrimination in relation to access to health, education, and social services.(6) In this context, the realization of rights by people living with HIV would require nondiscriminatory access within a supportive social environment.

People are affected by HIV/AIDS when their close or extended families, their communities and, more broadly, the structures and services that exist for their benefit are strained by the consequences of the pandemic and as a result fail to provide them with the support and services they need. These effects of the HIV epidemic on people's lives may be compounded by marginalization and stigmatization on the basis of such attributes as race, migrant status, behaviors, or kinship that may be perceived as risk factors for HIV infection. Neglect or violation of the rights of people affected by HIV may include restricted or denied access to health services, education, and social programs.(7) People affected by HIV may progress toward the realization of their rights and better health if the enabling conditions exist to alleviate the impacts of personal, societal, and programmatic issues on their lives. This requires policies and programs designed to extend support and services to affected families and communities. Children orphaned by HIV/AIDS illustrate this need.

Vulnerability to HIV is the lack of power of individuals and communities to minimize or modulate their risk of exposure to HIV infection and, once infected, to receive adequate care and support. Even in populations where HIV has not spread widely, some individuals may be more vulnerable than others with regard to HIV. For example, gender and/or economic inequality may force a monogamous woman to engage in unprotected sex with her spouse, even if he is engaging in sex with others. Adolescent girls and boys may be vulnerable to HIV by being denied access to preventive information, education, and services. A truck driver's vulnerability to HIV may be exacerbated by peer pressure to engage in multiple unprotected sexual encounters. Sex workers may have greater vulnerability to HIV if they cannot access services to prevent, diagnose, and treat sexually transmitted infections, particularly if they are afraid to come forward because of the stigma associated with their occupation. Vulnerability is heightened by the denial of such rights as the rights to information, education, association, or essential care. To reduce vulnerability requires actions that enable individuals and communities to make and effectuate choices in their lives and thereby effectively modulate the health risks to which they may be exposed.

The effects of discrimination--particularly in the forms of racism, gender-based discrimination, and homophobia--continue to exacerbate the impact of the pandemic on the lives of individuals and populations around the world. It is increasingly recognized that realization of human rights is critical to protecting the rights and dignity of those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS, and to decreasing the relative vulnerability of individuals and communities.

Government Responsibilities for Human Rights in the Context of HIV/AIDS
As discussed above, with the applicability of international law to HIV/AIDS, governments are publicly accountable for their actions toward people in the context of HIV/AIDS. Given the reality of violations that continue to occur, it is useful to consider the specific human rights responsibilities of governments. Governments are responsible for not violating rights directly, as well as for ensuring the conditions that enable people to realize their rights as fully as possible. It is understood that, for every human right, governments have responsibilities at three levels:

    they must respect the right
    they must protect the right
    they must fulfill the right(8)

As an illustration, consider governmental obligations in the context of HIV, using one right--the right to education:

Respecting the right means that states cannot violate the right directly. This means that the right to education is violated if children are barred from attending school on the basis of their HIV status.

Protecting the right means a state has to prevent violations of rights by nonstate actors and offer some sort of redress that people know about and have access to if a violation does occur. A state has to ensure, for example, that religious groups are not successful when they try to stop adolescents from accessing reproductive health education.

Fulfilling the right means states have to take all appropriate measures-legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial, and otherwise-toward fulfilling the right. If a state fails to provide essential HIV/AIDS prevention education in enough languages and media to be accessible to everyone in the population, this in and of itself could be understood to be a violation of the right to education.

In most countries, resource and other constraints can render it impossible for a government to fulfill all rights immediately and completely. The mechanisms responsible for monitoring governmental compliance with human rights obligations recognize that, in practical terms, a commitment to the right to basic education will require more than just passing a law. It will require financial resources, trained personnel, facilities, textbooks, and a sustainable infrastructure. Therefore, realization of rights is generally understood as making steady progress toward a goal. This principle of "progressive realization" is fundamental to the achievement of human rights. It is critical for resource-poor countries, which are responsible for striving toward human rights goals to the maximum extent possible; however, it is also important because it imposes an obligation on wealthier countries to engage in international assistance and cooperation.(9) In addition, as member states of intergovernmental and multilateral institutions, governments can be challenged to account for the impact of the actions of these institutions on health and development.

Despite the importance attached to human rights, there are situations where it is considered legitimate to restrict rights to achieve a broader public good. As described in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the public good can take precedence to "secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others; meet the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare; and in times of emergency, when there are threats to the vital interests of the nation."(10)

Public health is one such recognized public good.(11) Traditional public health measures have generally focused on curbing the spread of disease by imposing restrictions on the rights of those already infected or considered most vulnerable to becoming infected. Coercion, compulsion, and restriction have historically been significant components of public health measures.(12) Although the restrictions on rights that have occurred in the context of public health have generally had as their first concern protection of the public's health, the measures taken have often been excessive. Interference with freedom of movement when instituting quarantine or isolation for a serious communicable disease--for example, Ebola fever, syphilis, typhoid, or untreated tuberculosis--is an example of a restriction on rights that may in some circumstances be necessary for the public good and therefore could be considered legitimate under international human rights law. However, arbitrary measures taken by public health authorities that fail to consider other valid alternatives may be abusive of both human rights principles and public health "best practice." There are countless examples from around the world of this sort of abuse in the context of HIV/AIDS.(13)

Certain rights are absolute, which means that restrictions may never be placed on them, even if justified as necessary for the public good. These include such rights as the right to be free from torture, slavery, or servitude; the right to a fair trial; and the right to freedom of thought.(14) Interference with most rights can be legitimately justified as necessary under narrowly defined circumstances.(15) Limitations on rights, however, are considered a serious issue under international human rights law, regardless of the apparent importance of the public good involved. When a government limits the exercise or enjoyment of a right, this action must be taken only as a last resort and will only be considered legitimate if the following criteria are met:

    The restriction is provided for and carried out in accordance with the law.
    The restriction is in the interest of a legitimate objective of general interest.
    The restriction is strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective.
    There are no less intrusive and restrictive means available to reach the same goal.
    The restriction is not imposed arbitrarily, ie, in an unreasonable or otherwise discriminatory manner.(16)

Whereas this approach has long been recognized by those concerned with human rights monitoring and implementation as relevant to analyzing a government's actions, it has also recently begun to be considered a useful tool in a number of places by those responsible within government for HIV/AIDS-related policies and programs.(17)

HIV/AIDS, Public Health, and Human Rights in Practice
Using human rights concepts, one can examine the extent to which governments are progressively respecting, protecting, and fulfilling their obligations for all rights-civil, political, economic, social, and cultural-and how these government actions influence patterns of infection and concomitant responses.(18) The following section presents a framework for monitoring government action.

Advocacy and Accountability
Governments are responsible for promoting and protecting both public health and human rights.(19) None of the international human rights treaties specifically mentions HIV or the rights of individuals in the context of HIV/AIDS, yet all the international human rights mechanisms responsible for monitoring government action have expressed their commitment to exploring the implications of HIV/AIDS for governmental obligations. This may be of critical importance for fusing HIV/AIDS and human rights in practical and concrete ways. For example, in the past several years, increasing attention has been paid to HIV/AIDS in government reporting regarding their human rights obligations. Of the six human rights treaty monitoring bodies, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women have been the most active in both their questions and responses in relation to HIV/AIDS. All the human rights treaty-monitoring bodies have expressed general concern at the increasing rates of HIV infection and its impact on the lives of populations. In their interactions with some countries, these bodies have focused specifically on laws and policies that might increase rates of infection, such as the lack of health care facilities available to adolescents without parental consent. A primary focus has been the need for governments to use a human rights framework to enact strategies for HIV prevention realistically targeted to the needs of affected populations, including providing information and education, ensuring care and support for people living with HIV and with AIDS, and taking steps to reduce the social and economic consequences of the disease.

Resolutions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the 1998 International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights also provide advocates and policymakers with useful tools for helping to ensure increased attention to both HIV/AIDS and human rights.(20) In addition, governments have made political commitments at international conferences such as the U.N. International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, and the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, stating their responsibility for ensuring the rights of individuals in the context of HIV/AIDS.(21) Although it may represent the lowest common denominator to which all countries could agree, the consensus document that was issued by the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS in June 2001 may become a critically important document for advocacy and accountability in relation to HIV/AIDS and human rights.(22) Advocates and others interested in using these three political documents for policy and programmatic purposes may find them useful complements to other more technically explicit international policy and program guidance on promoting and protecting human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS.

Human Rights in HIV/AIDS Policy and Program Design
Human rights are governmental obligations toward individuals; because these obligations include the protection of public health, they are relevant to the design, implementation, and evaluation of health policies and programs.(23) Based on these obligations, governments can be understood as legally responsible for instituting policies and programs that can reduce the spread and impact of HIV/AIDS. However the respect, protection, and fulfillment of all human rights--civil, political, economic, social, and cultural--are necessary not only because they are the binding legal obligations of governments but also because they are critical to an effective response. Examining public health through a human rights lens involves looking not only at the technical and operational aspects of public health interventions but also at the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural factors that surround them. These factors may include, for example, gender relations, religious beliefs, homophobia, or racism. Individually and in synergy, these factors may influence the extent to which individuals and communities are able to access services or make and effectuate free and informed decisions about their lives--and, therefore, may influence the extent of their vulnerability to HIV/AIDS, including accessing needed care and support once infected with HIV.(24) Thus, recognizing human rights in the design, implementation, and evaluation of health policies and programs can help shape more effective action.

HIV/AIDS policies and programs can be improved by a systematic review of how and to what extent interventions are both respectful of human rights and of benefit to public health. The questions described in the box below can be used by policymakers and public health and other government officials to aid in the development, implementation, and evaluation of more effective HIV/AIDS policies and programs; they can also be used by nongovernmental organizations and other concerned actors as an advocacy tool to hold governments accountable vis-à-vis compliance with their international legal obligations to promote and protect both public health and human rights.

The following questions are intended only to serve as a starting point:(25) 

• What is the specific intended purpose of the policy or program?
• What are the ways and the extent to which the policy or program may have an impact--positively and negatively--on public health?
• Using international human rights documents for guidance, what and whose rights are affected positively and negatively by the policy or the program?
• Does the policy or program necessitate the restriction of human rights?
• If so, have the criteria/preconditions been met?Are the health and other relevant structures and services capable of effectively implementing the policy or program?
• What steps are being taken to progress toward the optimal synergy between the promotion and protection of health and rights in relation to the issue?
• What system of monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and redress exists to ensure that the policy or program is progressing toward the intended effect and that adverse effects are addressed?

 

A Framework for Action
An agenda for action can be created by recognizing the convergence of the three situations in which people live in a world with HIV/AIDS--infected, affected, and vulnerable--and the three levels of government obligations that exist for every right-respect, protect, and fulfill. This approach has the power to bring about the incorporation of human rights promotion and protection into the diversity of responses designed to control the pandemic and mitigate its impact. Table 1 summarizes the three situations and three levels of obligation that should be considered by governments and other actors when identifying the specific needs and related rights of individuals in the context of HIV/AIDS.

ConclusionPeople living with HIV/AIDS, their friends and relatives, their communities, national and international policy- and decisionmakers, health professionals, and the public at large all, to varying degrees, understand the fundamental linkages between HIV/AIDS and human rights. The importance of bringing HIV/AIDS policies and programs in line with international human rights law is generally acknowledged but, unfortunately, rarely carried out in reality. Policymakers, program managers, and service providers must become more comfortable using human rights norms and standards to guide and limit the actions taken by or on behalf of governments in all matters affecting the response to HIV/AIDS. This requires genuine attention to building their capacity to recognize and promote the synergy between health and human rights and to appreciate more fully the potential gains when health interventions are guided by human rights principles. Those involved in HIV/AIDS advocacy must become more familiar with the practicalities of genuinely using international human rights law when they strive to hold governments accountable. For human rights to remain relevant to legal and policy work in HIV/AIDS, the contact between the conceptual work being done on the linkage between HIV/AIDS and human rights and the realities faced by those working in advocacy and in policy and program design must be ongoing; it is the mutually supportive--although occasionally mutually challenging--interaction between these groups that will help keep this work vital and useful.

Finally, concern with the events of September 11, 2001, and its aftermath has begun to threaten recent commitments to HIV/AIDS by the U.S. government and other donor countries. It is critical that these crises not be pitted against one another in the context of public opinion and discourse, political and legal commitments, or the allocation of financial and technical resources. To control the HIV/AIDS pandemic and mitigate its impact require action not only within a country's own borders but also in line with international human rights obligations through its engagement in international assistance and cooperation. Sustained commitment is critical to the future of the HIV/AIDS epidemics in the United States and around the world.
 

References

1. World Health Organization, World Health Assembly, Avoidance of Discrimination Against HIV-Infected Persons and Persons with AIDS, preamble, resolution WHA41.24 (May 13, 1988).

2. See, for example, Statement from the community AIDS movement in Africa, presented at the meeting on the international partnership against HIV/AIDS in Africa, New York, UN Headquarters, December 6-7, 1999.

3. World Health Organization, World Health Assembly, Resolution WHA 40.26, Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of AIDS, Geneva, WHO, 5 May 1987.

4. Mann J, Gostin L, Gruskin S, et al. Health and human rights. Health and Human Rights 1994;1(1):6-23.

5. D Tarantola. Risk and vulnerability reduction in the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Current Issues in Public Health 1995;1:176-9; S Gruskin, D Tarantola. HIV/AIDS, Health and Human Rights. In: P Lamptey, H Gayle, P Mane, (eds). HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Programs in Resource-Constrained Settings: A Handbook for the Design and Management of Programs. Arlington, Virginia: Family Health International, 2000.

6. Human Rights Internet. Human rights and HIV/AIDS: effective community responses. Ottawa: International Human Rights Documentation Network, 1998. R Cohen, L Wiseberg. Double jeopardy-threat to life and human rights: discrimination against persons with AIDS. Cambridge, MA: Human Rights Internet, 1990.
 

7. S Gruskin, A Wakhweya. A human rights perspective on HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. In: M Laga, K De Cock, N Kaleeba, S Mboup, D Tarantola (eds). AIDS in Africa, 2nd edition. London: Rapid Science Publisher, 1997:S159-S167. S Hunter, J Williamson. Developing Strategies and Policies for Support of HIV/AIDS Infected and Affected Children. Washington: USAID, 1997.
 

8. A Eide, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights. In: A Eide, C Krause, A Rosas, (eds). Economic, social and cultural rights: a Textbook. Dordrecht: Martinus. Nijhoff, 1995, at 21-40.

9. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. NO. 16, at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), Article 2.
 

10. United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), UN GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966).
 

11. The specific power of the state to restrict right in the state of public health can be understood to be derived from Article 12 (c) of the ICESCR, which gives governments the right to take the steps they deem necessary for the 'prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.'

12. See, for example, Smith, S. (1911). The powers and duties of the board of health. Social Diseases, 2(3), 9; Schmidt, T.A. (1995). When public health competes with individual needs. Academy of Emergency Medicine, 2, 217-22; Cohen, M.L. (1998). Resurgent and emergent disease in a changing world. British Medical Bulletin, 54(3), 523-32.

13. See, for example, Cohen, R., Wiseberg, L. (1990). Double jeopardy-threat to life and human rights: discrimination against persons with AIDS. Human Rights Internet, Cambridge, MA; United Nations (1992a). Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention and Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Discrimination against HIV-infected people or people with AIDS. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/10 (July 28, 1992); United Nations (1994). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR). General Comment No. 5 (Eleventh Session). Persons with disabilities. UN Doc. E/C.12/1194/13; Human Rights Internet (1998). 'Human rights and HIV/AIDS: effective community responses.' International Human Rights Documentation Network, Ottawa.
 

14. See, for example, Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states in pertinent part that 'No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16, 18 may be made under this provision.'
 

15. See, for example, Article 4 of the ICCPR, which states in pertinent part, 'In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.'

16. United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (1985). The Siracusa Principles on the limitations and derogation provisions in the international covenant on civil and political rights. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex.
 

17. World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS) (1999). Consultation on HIV/AIDS reporting and disclosure, Geneva, 20-22 October 1999.

18. S Gruskin. Human rights and public health: an overview. Canadian HIV/AIDS newsletter, 1999.

19. See, for example, World Health Assembly resolution 40.26 of 15 May 1987; General Assembly resolution 42/8 of 26 October 1987. Also see more recently World Health Assembly Resolution 54.10 of 21 May 2001, 'Scaling up the response to HIV/AIDS,' and UN Commission on Human Rights Resolutions 2001/51 of 24 April 2001; 1999/49 of 21 April 1999; 1997/33 of 11 April 1997; 1996/43 of 19 April 1996 and 1995/44 of 3 March 1995.

20. See, in particular, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Joint United Programme on HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS and human rights: international guidelines. UN Doc HR/PUB/98/1 (1998).

21. Gruskin S. The highest priority: making use of UN conference documents to remind governments of their commitments. Health and Human Rights 1998;3 (1):107-142.
 

22. UNAIDS, 'Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS: Global Crisis - Global Action,' United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS, New York, NY (2001).

23. S Gruskin, A Hendriks, K Tomasevski. Human rights and responses to HIV/AIDS. In: J Mann, D Tarantola (eds). AIDS in the World II. London: Oxford University Press, 1996:326-340. United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Non-Discrimination in the Field of Health, preamble, Resolution 1989/11 (March 2, 1989).

24. S Gruskin. Human rights and public health: an overview. Canadian HIV/AIDS newsletter, 1999.

25. International Federal of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights. The public health-human rights dialogue. In: AIDS, Health and Human Rights: an Explanatory Manual. Boston: 1995. WHO/UNAIDS. Partner Notification and Disclosure of HIV and/or AIDS Serostatus to Others. Geneva: June 1999.

Human Rights : Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Health (HIV, AIDS)

In a significant development, the European Parliament (EP) has linked the Kashmir dispute with the signing of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. According to a news (Source: The Nation, 14 June 2011), the para-33 of the resolution passed by the European Parliament on May 11, 2011, over the FTA between India and European Union, states that "Human rights, democracy and security are essential elements of the relationship between EU and India. Therefore we call on both the sides to ensure that dialogue on open issues is stepped up with particular reference to Kashmir".

• According to a recent UNDP report India has 30.5 million men-who-sex-with-men (MSM), and over a million Hijras, or transgenders. The national HIV prevalence amongst MSM is estimated at 7.41%, with 24% MSM testing positive for HIV in the state of Goa, and 18.8% in Mumbai. While MSM are at a high risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV, only about 4% of those at risk are currently able to access appropriate HIV services in India.

It is heartening to note that the EU is giving top priority to human rights, democracy and security in all its dealings, especially in relation to its Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with India. But why single out Kashmir? Surely this must be applicable to other countries as well, which are in the process of signing these agreements with the developed countries.

The Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS issued at the end of the recently concluded High Level Meeting on AIDS also reaffirms that "the full realization of all human rights for all is an essential element in the global response to the HIV epidemic, including in the areas of prevention, treatment, care and support”, and recognizes that “addressing stigma and discrimination against people living with, presumed to be living with HIV is also a critical element in combating the global HIV epidemic."

But then, human rights are applicable to human beings. If certain components of FTAs result in a systematic extermination of communities affected with HIV/AIDS or for that matter any other disease requiring prolonged and subsidized treatment, it would be the worst form of human rights violation - snatching away the right to live at all. This is no exaggeration, but a warning sign of the times to come, and warrants immediate action.

According to Sarah Zaidi Executive Director, International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) Secretariat, "While patients in developed countries have treatment options, the same cannot be said for those in developing countries where 95% of the 33.3 million HIV-infected people worldwide, live. Most of these people will need to be treated with ARVs if they are to live healthy and productive lives. However, the main barrier for accessing treatment to better drugs is TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), as TRIPS patent protection has limited the competition for newer generic drugs and has impeded access to improved treatment options for HIV-infected persons in developing countries. Most of the newer drugs are protected by patents held by pharmaceutical companies and are unaffordable."

The Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS: Intensifying Our Efforts to Eliminate HIV and AIDS adopted by the General Assembly at the end of the recently concluded UN High Level Meeting on AIDS that brought together 3,000 participants, including 30 heads of State and government, to chart a path for the future of the AIDS response: "We recognize the critical importance of affordable medicines, including generics, in scaling up access to affordable HIV treatment; and further recognize that protection and enforcement measures for intellectual property rights should be compliant with Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of the right of Member States to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all; we also note with concern that regulations, policies and practices, including those that limit legitimate trade of generic medicines, may seriously limit access to affordable and good quality HIV treatment and other pharmaceutical products in low- and middle-income countries."

The HIV epidemic remains an unprecedented human catastrophe inflicting immense suffering on communities throughout the world, with more than 30 million people dying from AIDS, and another estimated 33 million people living with HIV. Also, over 7000 new HIV infections occur every day, mostly among people in low- and middle-income countries. Although providing access to anti retroviral (ARV) treatment to over 6 million people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries, and a more than 25 per cent drop in the rate of new HIV infections, coupled with over 20% reduction in AIDS-related deaths in the past five years can be taken as a major achievement, there are still at least 10 million people living with HIV who though medically-eligible, lack access to start on ARVs.

With evidence now available that FTAs do indeed adversely impact production and supply of generic medicines, the EU, and other developed countries would do well to support access to safe, effective and affordable generic medicines. They need to recognize the danger that FTAs pose to the sustainability of treatment of HIV/AIDS and other diseases. EU needs to allow governments to use public health safeguards when they face intellectual property (IP) barriers in producing or purchasing affordable medicines for HIV/AIDS, and also keep the TRIPS-plus provisions out of FTAs, instead of pushing their intellectual property agenda.

Then only would they become true human rights crusaders and have the moral right to hold to account other countries for human rights violations—whether it be Kashmir or elsewhere-- with the aim of the promoting universal respect for, and the observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments relating to human rights and international law.