[Repost] Report: “Gaza Genocide: a collective crime” by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (A/80/492)

29 October 2025

20 October 2025

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/special-rapporteur-report-gaza-genocide-a-collective-crime-20oct25/

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese

Gaza Genocide: a collective crime

Summary:

The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential Third States that have enabled longstanding systemic violations of international law by Israel. Framed by colonial narratives that dehumanize the Palestinians, this live- streamed atrocity has been facilitated through Third States’ direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and, in some cases, active participation. It has exposed an unprecedented chasm between peoples and their governments, betraying the trust on which global peace and security rest. The world now stands on a knife-edge between the collapse of the international rule of law and hope for renewal. Renewal is only possible if complicity is confronted, responsibilities are met and justice is upheld.

I. Introduction:

  1. Without the direct participation, aid and assistance of other States, the prolonged unlawful Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory, which has now escalated into a full- fledged genocide, could not have been sustained. The military, political and economic support of some Third States and the unwillingness to hold Israel accountable has enabled Israel to embed its regime of settler-colonial apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), with more colonies, home demolitions, restrictions on movement and loss and erasure of Palestinian life. Since October 2023, Israel has escalated its violence to an unprecedented level.
  2. In light of this complicity, this report demonstrates that the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians must be understood as an internationally enabled crime. Many States, primarily Western ones, have facilitated, legitimized and eventually normalized the genocidal campaign perpetrated by Israel. By portraying Palestinian civilians as “human shields” and the broader onslaught in Gaza as a battle of civilization against barbarism, they have reproduced the Israeli distortions of international law and colonial tropes, seeking to justify their own complicity in genocide.
  3. Focusing on the aid and assistance that Third States have provided to the illegal Israeli occupation and its genocide of the Palestinian people, the report identifies four sectors of support: diplomatic, military, economic and “humanitarian”. Each is indispensable to the ongoing Israeli violations of international law. Diplomatic initiatives have normalized the Israeli occupation and failed to achieve a permanent ceasefire. Large-scale military aid, cooperation and arms transfers, primarily to and from the United States and European States, have enabled Israeli domination over the Palestinian people. This has also facilitated Israeli actions to dismantle humanitarian aid and impose conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of Palestinians as a group. Economic cooperation has fuelled the Israeli economy, which has profited from the illegal occupation and genocide.
  4. The successful measures implemented against Apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia, Portugal and other colonial regimes demonstrate that international law can be enforced to secure justice and self-determination. Today, Third States have the same legal and moral obligation to apply these and other measures against any State still perpetrating settler- colonial violence and apartheid. Their failure to hold Israel accountable for its long-standing international crimes – despite clear orders from international courts – exposes the flagrant double standards of the international community.

II. Methodology

  1. The report was developed through a review of UN materials, including the report of the Secretary General A/79/588 and 40 submissions from State and non-State actors. All 63 States mentioned in the report were provided the opportunity to comment on factual errors or inaccuracies; 18 States submitted a reply.

III. Legal Framework

  1. International law imposes a range of obligations on all States to respect, prevent and bring an end to violations whenever they occur. In the context of the oPt, the most relevant are:

(a) Direct obligations all States owe to the Palestinian people – especially the obligations to respect their right to self-determination and freedom from apartheid and genocide – and to the State of Palestine, while respecting the principles of non-interference, territorial integrity, political independence and self-defence.

(b) Obligations erga omnes arising from the serious breach of peremptory norms – the obligation to respect the self-determination of the people, the prohibition of genocide, racial segregation, apartheid and territorial acquisition through force by Israel, including: (i) a positive obligation to, individually and cooperatively, bring any unlawful situation to an end through lawful means; and negative duties to not (ii) recognize as lawful the situation arising from their breach, or (iii) render aid or assistance to maintain that situation.

(c) Obligations of due diligence to prevent specific violations of international law, including the obligations to: (i) prevent genocide (triggered when a “serious risk” arises); (ii) ensure respect for international humanitarian law (triggered when violations are “likely or foreseeable”) and (iii) cooperate to prevent crimes and attacks on internationally protected persons.

(d) Obligations to refrain from aiding or assisting, or directly participating in internationally wrongful acts of other States, including aggression, apartheid and

7. While international law does not prescribe the specific actions that Third States must take to discharge their obligations, certain obligations are assessed according to results. Where these obligations are duties of conduct, State responsibility depends on the circumstances involved, gravity of the violations in question, level of influence over the violating State and the means available to exert such influence. A State fails in its obligation if it does not use all available means to discharge it.

8. Certain areas of international law do specify the means available to States and the opinio juris regarding expected actions, which are relevant to assessing Third State compliance with their obligations. These include:

(a) Forcible measures: Third States may, and in some case must, use force against a State in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, in at least three circumstances:

(i) under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Third States may intervene on request of a State acting in self-defence when subject to an act of aggression; (ii) pursuant to a UNSC Resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; (iii) under the Uniting for Peace resolution.

(b) Arms embargoes: the Arms Trade Treaty prohibits arms and other military- related transfers when it is known or should have been known that the goods will be used in international crimes. It also requires risk assessments to prevent transfers where there are overriding risks to international peace and security or of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian Prohibitions also apply to transit and trans-shipment.

(c) Trade embargoes: treaties under the World Trade Organization allow States to deviate from core trade principles, such as Most Favoured Nation, to fulfil their UN Charter obligations relating to international peace and security, including peremptory norms. Bilateral free trade and investment agreements with Israel usually contain similar clauses, and human rights arguments have been upheld in international arbitration. To the extent that bilateral agreements violate peremptory norms or sustain their serious breach, they are null and void.

(d) Denial of Safe Passage: the Convention on the Law of the Sea allows States to prevent “non-innocent passage” where a ship’s passage is not “in conformity with the rules of international law”, and risks rendering the State complicit in international crimes, violations of UN Charter obligations or peremptory norms.

(e) Prosecution and Punishment: under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, all States have the obligation to prosecute and punish genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, regardless of their connection to the Third States also have obligations to hold third parties, including corporations, to account for human rights and other violations of international law in their domestic courts.

9. A context of sustained and intersecting peremptory norms’ violations, and the obligation to prevent genocide, compound the imperative to It may mean that the actions Third States must take to fulfil their obligations are no longer discretionary, and that in not taking them, States have failed to take all measures reasonably available to them and/or they have aided and assisted in an internationally wrongful act. That is, unless less intrusive measures based on the assessment in paragraph 8 would truly suffice.

10. The conduct of States and international organizations constitutes complicity when their actions aid and assist in a way that: (1) materially or substantially enables or facilitates the commission of the wrongful act; (2) are done with full knowledge of the circumstances, including the imminent or actual occurrence of the wrongful act and, where relevant, the special intent of the perpetrator.

11. State complicity is established when there is a nexus between the actions of the two States in question in the serious breach of peremptory norms. Such complicity may involve extent that bilateral agreements violate peremptory norms or sustain their serious breach, they are null and void.

(d) Denial of Safe Passage: the Convention on the Law of the Sea allows States to prevent “non-innocent passage” where a ship’s passage is not “in conformity with the rules of international law”, and risks rendering the State complicit in international crimes, violations of UN Charter obligations or peremptory norms.

(e) Prosecution and Punishment: under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, all States have the obligation to prosecute and punish genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, regardless of their connection to the Third States also have obligations to hold third parties, including corporations, to account for human rights and other violations of international law in their domestic courts.

9. A context of sustained and intersecting peremptory norms’ violations, and the obligation to prevent genocide, compound the imperative to It may mean that the actions Third States must take to fulfil their obligations are no longer discretionary, and that in not taking them, States have failed to take all measures reasonably available to them and/or they have aided and assisted in an internationally wrongful act. That is, unless less intrusive measures based on the assessment in paragraph 8 would truly suffice.

10. The conduct of States and international organizations constitutes complicity when their actions aid and assist in a way that: (1) materially or substantially enables or facilitates the commission of the wrongful act; (2) are done with full knowledge of the circumstances, including the imminent or actual occurrence of the wrongful act and, where relevant, the special intent of the perpetrator.

11. State complicity is established when there is a nexus between the actions of the two States in question in the serious breach of peremptory norms, Such complicity may involve the provision or denial of funds, weapons, fuel, intelligence, diplomatic or political pressure or sanctions, or the implementation of orders and arrest warrants. The intention of a Third State to facilitate a wrongful act is reasonably inferrable from the foreseeable consequences of that State’s actions. Assistance such as the provision of funds, weapons, fuel and intelligence and other less tangible actions (diplomatic recognition, sanctions, non- implementation of obligations and of court orders) can substantially influence States committing internationally wrongful acts. Knowledge of a State’s policies, including through official relationships, may inform relevant inference. While individual actions may not constitute complicity in themselves, their aggregate and cumulative effect over time, including when combined with the actions of other States, must be considered as part of the assessment.

12. When the conduct of Third States is direct, indispensable and constitutive (i.e., without it, the result would have not occurred in whole or in part), it must be considered whether States have gone beyond aid and/or assistance to jointly participate in an internationally wrongful act. As with a joint criminal enterprise under individual criminal responsibility, it is unnecessary to establish that one State performs the wrongful act in its entirety, only that their contribution is a constituent element of the crime and attributable to the State. Direct State responsibility for genocide may arise when (a) conduct attributable to a State is integral to the commission of one or more genocidal acts, and (b) the State formed genocidal intent based on the totality of conduct attributable to it.

13. Israeli violations in the occupied territory have been established for decades. By 2004, in its Wall Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) placed the international community on notice of its obligations to end serious violations of peremptory norms of international law. By 6 October 2023, Israel had long denied the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination through occupation, annexation and unlawful use of force, maintaining control over Palestinian lives through a racially discriminatory and apartheid system. The illegal blockade of Gaza, compounded by regular military attacks involving war crimes and crimes against humanity, had made the Gaza Strip “unliveable”, priming the situation for genocide.

14. In the last two years, Israeli crimes have dramatically By 20 October 2023, international law experts, genocide scholars and human rights organizations had warned of impending genocide. On 26 January 2024, the ICJ confirmed the serious risk of genocide in Gaza, giving rise to States obligations to prevent it and to punish incitement, commission or complicity. By May 2024, the Court had issued two further Provisional Measures orders and made judicial comments in Nicaragua v Germany, the ICC Prosecutor had sought arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, and Third States had “actual or constructive knowledge” of the ongoing international crimes they had failed to prevent, triggering a heightened responsibility to act.

15. In July 2024, 20 years after its 2004 Wall Advisory Opinion, the ICJ determined the illegality of the continued presence of Israel in the oPt in its entirety and the obligation of Israel to withdraw totally, unconditionally and as rapidly as possible. The UN General Assembly subsequently declared that the occupation must be dismantled by 18 September 2025. Israel has failed to do so.

16. On 16 September 2025, the UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, reaffirming the obligations of all States to prevent genocide, to cease committing and/or aiding and assisting genocide and punish those perpetrating and/or inciting genocide.

17. These developments confirm the seriousness of the breaches of peremptory norms involved and the concomitant legal obligations on all States to act, with two implications for the assessment of Third State responsibility:

(a) Intersecting duties must be assessed holistically and create an imperative on all States to take measures, including those outlined in paragraph 8 in order to discharge their

(b) Under existing law, the extent of Israel’s unlawful actions renders any distinction between Israel and the oPt legally and practically impossible. According to the due diligence tests outlined in the 2024 Advisory Opinion, if Israel itself is unwilling or unable to distinguish between its territory and the oPt, as is the case, Third States must presume indistinguishability, which requires a comprehensive boycott of Israel.

18. In the context of protracted aggression, denial of self-determination and heinous international crimes, there can be no reasonable doubt that States that maintain relations with Israel have knowledge of Decades of neglect by Third States and non-adherence to their obligations has created the conditions for their complicity in ongoing Israeli crimes. The following sections analyse Third States’ violations holistically, examining the link between intersecting components of genocide and States’ conduct.

IV. Intersecting Components of the Gaza Genocide

A. Genocide Under the Guise of Diplomatic and Political Actions

19. Prolonged political and diplomatic support by influential Third States has enabled Israel to initiate and sustain its assault on the Palestinian people. In the past two years, entrenched complicity, marked by narrative manipulations and reproduction of Israeli fabrications, have muted the urgent calls for action and obscured the web of political, financial and military interests at play. The longstanding failure to address egregious violations of international law by Israel – threatening international peace and security – has normalized and deepened relations with it, entrenching oppression, domination and erasure.

20. Following 7 October 2023, most Western leaders parroted Israeli narratives, disseminated by State and corporate media, repeating debunked claims and erasing core distinctions between combatants and civilians. Israelis were depicted as “civilians” and “hostages”, and Palestinians as “Hamas terrorists”, “legitimate” or “collateral” targets, “human shields” or lawfully detained “prisoners”. Drawing on a long history of the “savage” denied protections of international law, revived by the War on Terror discourse, Western States helped to justify the genocide against Palestinians. On 9 October 2023, immediately after Israel announced a tightened siege on Gaza, key Western leaders expressed support for the “self-defence” of Israel – unwarranted under article 51 of the UN Charter. President Biden repeatedly cited unsubstantiated reports of “beheaded babies”. British opposition Leader Keir Starmer defended Israel’s right to cut off water and power to civilians.

21. This environment fuelled a ferocious Israeli assault. Even amidst urgent calls for a ceasefire, Western states, led by the United States, advocated only for humanitarian “corridors”, “pauses” and “truces” – sidestepping a permanent ceasefire and ensuring a continuation of the violence. States reverted to treating the situation as a humanitarian crisis to be managed, rather than resolved, by demanding that Israel end its unlawful occupation once and for all, providing further leeway to the assault on Gaza.

22. Post-October 2023, the United States used its veto power in the UN Security Council seven times, controlling ceasefire negotiations and providing diplomatic cover for the Israeli genocide. The US has not acted alone. Abstentions, delays, watered-down draft resolutions and a simplistic rhetoric of “balance” reinforced the diplomatic protection and political narrative Israel required to continue the The United Kingdom maintained alignment with the US position until November 2024. A bloc of Western states – Australia, New Zealand and Canada, sometimes joined by the UK, Germany or the Netherlands – appeared at times ready to pressurize Israel, such as in December 2023, when their statements added momentum for a ceasefire. Yet their introduction of the term “sustained ceasefire” produced a diluted UNSC resolution that delayed action. In February 2024, they criticized the planned invasion of Rafah while simultaneously withdrawing United Nations Relief Words Agency (UNRWA) funding. Such diplomacy created an illusion of progress while concrete actions were repeatedly stymied.

23. Sanctions served a similar In 2024, Australia, Canada, the EU, New Zealand and the UK sanctioned some extremist settlers and organizations, and in June 2025, Israeli Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich were sanctioned by Australia, Canada, Norway and the UK. Yet such isolated actions effectively condone the Israeli state system and structures as a whole.

24. Arab and Muslim states have long supported the Palestinian Three joint Arab- Islamic summits and several extraordinary meetings on Palestine, generated some collective efforts, including the Arab Plan. Nevertheless, these actions have not been decisive, even amid Israeli aggression against six Arab States, reflecting the complexity of regional geopolitics. Normalization through the US-brokered Abraham Accords has also shifted economic incentives. Open sources report that influential States in the region facilitated land routes to Israel, bypassing the Red Sea. While Qatar and Egypt sought to broker ceasefire agreements, Qatar hosts the largest US military base in the region, and Egypt maintained significant security and economic relations with Israel, including energy cooperation and the closing of the Rafah crossing.

25. Certain non-Western States have turned to international courts to seek accountability and pressurize Israel to cease its actions. While only 13 States have supported South Africa before the ICJ, most Western States have persistently denied genocide. None have joined Nicaragua against Germany at the ICJ, or invoked domestic laws against complicit corporations or individuals. Only seven referred the situation to the ICC, many sought to undermine its arrest warrants, and at least 37 States were non-committal or critical, signalling intent to evade arrest obligations. The United States imposed sanctions to paralyse the Court; the United Kingdom threatened its funding, while Prime Minister Netanyahu travelled freely across European airspace, even visiting Hungary, which withdrew from the Court in April 2025.

26. Israel has been sheltered from accountability in courts as well as in global fora, with institutions preventing its deserved expulsion both from sports (e.g., Paris Olympics, FIFA World Cup qualifiers, FIBA, Davis Cup) and cultural events (Eurovision, Venice Biennale).

27. The ICJ’s groundbreaking ruling on the illegality of the occupation has yet to bring change. On 18 September 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution ES-10/24, reaffirming the binding nature of the Court’s legal obligations and formulating a roadmap to end the occupation by 17 September 2025 through diplomatic, economic and legal measures which states have yet to implement.

28. The Saudi–French Two-State Solution Conference of September 2025 led to ten new States recognizing the State of Palestine. While an important step, these tardy recognitions have so far remained symbolic, with no tangible effect in addressing the ongoing genocide. Overall, 20 new states have issued recognitions of the State of Palestine since October 2023, but with restrictive conditions (e.g., concerning governance, territorial integrity, political independence and demilitarization) incompatible with the very essence of self- determination, effectively reproducing forms of colonial tutelage.

29. Since October 2023, only Belize, Bolivia, Colombia and Nicaragua have suspended diplomatic relations with Israel, and only six States – Bahrain, Chad, Chile, Honduras, Jordan, Türkiye and South Africa – have downgraded their relations with Israel.

30. The most notable effort has come from the Hague Group initiative launched in January 2025. Led by Colombia and South Africa, 13 States of the Global Majority have committed to enforce six concrete measures against Israel. Twenty-one other States joined the third meeting of the Group in New York on the sidelines of the 80th Session of the General Assembly. Despite the efforts of some of its members, Israel still holds its UN credentials.

31. On 30 September 2025, many States, including Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and the UAE, endorsed the “Trump Plan”, despite its silence on ending the occupation, ensuring accountability, providing transitional justice and its imposition of a temporary mechanism of imperial foreign governance for Gaza that further undermines, rather than realizes, Palestinian self-determination.

B. Military Ties: providing the means of destruction

32. While UN resolutions have called for arms embargoes on Israel since 1976, many States have continued supplying it with military support and arms transfers. Israel is disproportionately dependent on weapons imports, with the proportion of their total trade more than double the OECD average, and over four times greater than that of the United States. This international supply has continued, even as the evidence of genocide has mounted, with the United States, Germany and Italy among the largest suppliers. Only a few Western States, notably Spain and Slovenia, have cancelled contracts and imposed embargoes.

33. The United States has financially and militarily supported Israel since its creation. Following the 1967 war, Israel became the leading recipient of US Foreign Military Financing (FMF). The 60-year strategic partnership between the United States and Israel has been underpinned by a legislated commitment to Israeli “Qualitative Military Edge”, almost 30 years of agreements ensuring Israeli–US military cooperation, a steady supply of military and economic aid to Israel and preferential access to US military sales. The third US–Israel MOU, effective until 2028, guarantees $3.3 billion/year in FMF plus $500 million/year for missile. The US has supplied arms to Israel through military sales – the US accounts for two-thirds of annual Israeli arms imports – and through access to the US weapons stockpile (WRSA-I) in Israel. Israel also has special permission to use FMF to purchase Israeli-made weapons. Meanwhile Israeli purchase of F-15, F-16 and F- 35 fighter jets and munitions is supported by access to procurement funds to Israeli subsidiaries in the US.

34. US political, diplomatic, military and strategic support to Israel has escalated after 7 October 2023. Senior US politicians and military officials engaged in unprecedented travel to Israel, including for operational discussions on Israeli military conduct in Gaza. On 20 October 2023, the Biden Administration announced it would request an additional $14.3 billion for Israel. In April 2024, this passed Congress as a $26.4 billion package for Israeli defence just as Israel threatened the Rafah invasion, previously a stated (but subsequently denied) “red line” for President Biden. Israel was later exempted from the Trump Administration freeze on military aid.

35. Since October 2023, the US has transferred 742 consignments of “arms and ammunition” (HS Code 93) and approved tens of billions in new sales. The Biden and Trump Administrations reduced transparency, accelerated transfers through repeated emergency approvals, facilitated Israeli access to US weapons stockpile held abroad and authorized hundreds of sales just below the amount requiring congressional. The US has deployed military aircraft, special forces and surveillance drones to Israel, with US surveillance purportedly being used to target Hamas, including in the first raid on Al Shifa hospital.

36. By September 2024, the US had reportedly supplied 57,000 artillery shells, 36,000 rounds of cannon ammunition, 20,000 M4A1 rifles, 13,981 anti-tank missiles and 8,700 MK- 82 500lb bombs. By April 2025, Israel had 751 active sales valued at $39.2 billion. Both the Biden and Trump Administrations have enabled this constant flow of weapons, except for a short pause in the delivery of 500lb and 2000lb bombs on the eve of the Israeli attack on Rafah in May 2024, which lasted until July 2024 for 500lb bombs and until January 2025 for 2000lb bombs.

37. Germany has been the second-largest arms exporter to Israel during the genocide, with supplies ranging from frigates to torpedoes. German leaders have justified this support based on its perceived post-Holocaust obligations to Israel. In addition to suspending ethical and legal assessments of the Israeli occupation, from October 2023 to July 2025, Germany issued individual export licences worth €489 million – 15 percent of all licences to Israel in 22 years. This does not include any arms transferred under collective licences or on a government-to-government basis. Although Chancellor Merz temporarily suspended future export approvals in August 2025, €2.46 million in exports were approved a month later.

38. The United Kingdom has also played a key role in military collaboration with Israel, despite internal opposition. From its bases in Cyprus, the UK has enabled a crucial US supply line to Tel Aviv and flown over 600 surveillance missions over Gaza throughout the genocide, sharing intelligence with Israel. Flight numbers and durations, often coinciding with major Israeli operations, suggest detailed knowledge and cooperation in the destruction of Gaza, extending beyond “hostage rescue”.

39. Other States have supplied parts, components and weapons to Israel through an opaque system that obscures transfers, including ‘dual use’ and indirect transfers. Between October 2023 and October 2025, 26 States sent at least 10 consignments of “arms and ammunition” (HS Code 93) to Israel, the most frequent being China, including Taiwan, India, Italy, Austria, Spain, Czechia, Romania and France. Military aircraft, land vehicles, drones, dogs and dual-use items such as integrated circuits are harder to track.

40. States also engage in indirect transfers by supplying components for arms used by Israel. The F-35 stealth strike fighter programme, key to the Israeli military assault in Gaza, involves 19 States – Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, Romania, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States – supplying components and parts to Seventeen of them have ratified the Arms Trade Treaty. Despite litigation in the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Denmark and the United Kingdom – all of which defended their roles, and some cancellation of direct exports – States continue to transfer F-35 parts, heavily used in the genocidal destruction of Gaza.

41. States frequently deploy two arguments to justify arms trade with Israel: such arms are said to be either “defensive” or “non-lethal”. The Arms Trade Treaty does not recognize either distinction, but requires a holistic assessment of how all arms, parts and components will ultimately be used. Given that the occupation of Palestinian territory is an ongoing unlawful use of force in violation of the UN Charter, nothing Israel does there can be understood as “defensive” in nature.

42. States have continued to grant export licences for weapons to Israel, to review and partially retain licences despite acknowledging concerns (e.g., the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia) and to permit transfer of weapons through their ports and airports (e.g., Italy, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Morocco). Italy, the third largest exporter to Israel in 2020–2024, has argued that it complies with legal obligations to cease these exports, while continuing existing agreements and adopting a hands-off approach to transit. These actions, despite clear obligations and compounding concerns, indicate an intent to facilitate Israeli crimes.

43. States also support the Israeli military through military partnerships and joint defense manoeuvres. Since 2015, the Israeli Air Force has participated in the INIOCHOS exercise, including in 2025 alongside Greece, US, Italy, Qatar, UAE, France, Spain, Montenegro, India, Slovenia and Poland. In 2024–2025, Israel participated with 27 nations in the largest global exercise, led by AFRICOM (US Africa Command) and the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces. Israeli soldiers are trained at the UK Royal College of Defence Studies.190

44. In addition, thousands of citizens from the United States, Russia, France, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, among others, have served in the Israeli military since October 2023. Few have been investigated, and none prosecuted for crimes in Gaza.

45. Third States also continue to purchase Israeli weapons and military technology. Besides being a core component of its economy – in 2024 weapons exports accounted for 23 percent of Israeli exports, the second-highest share globally – these exports also enhance Israeli arms manufacturing capacity.

46. A unique selling point of Israeli military technology is that it is tested on Palestinians under occupation and related military activities. The ongoing genocide has enabled Israel to expand the range of weaponry and surveillance systems tested on the Gaza population. As a result, the value of arms exports increased by 18 percent during the genocide, with exports to the EU more than doubling and accounting for 54 percent of Israeli military exports in 2024. Other significant destinations include Asia and the Pacific (23 percent) and Arab countries under the Abraham Accords (12 percent).

C. Weaponization of aid: creating the living conditions for genocide

47. Some Third States have facilitated the degradation of living conditions of the Gaza population, including by the very means of their participation in the provision of aid.

48. Already, before 7 October, the illegal Gaza blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt – with severe restrictions on the movement of goods, even down to calculated caloric intake – had made 80 percent of the population aid-dependent, with 1 million relying on UNRWA for food and basic services. The agency is the bedrock of economic, social and humanitarian support for the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, its embeddedness in the local population allowing it to run more than 400 sites for aid distribution amid the genocide.

49. Since October 2023, Israel has turned existing restrictions into a full blockade. From October 2023 to January 2025, aid was limited to an average of 107 trucks per day – less than one third of pre-2023 levels.202 In March 2025, Israel further tightened its tightened its siege. By August 2025, famine in Gaza was declared by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification and at least 461 people have died from malnutrition-related causes.

50. In violation of its obligations to ensure adequate means of survival – as reaffirmed by the ICJ– the genocidal campaign by Israel has deliberately sought to destroy the humanitarian system sustaining the occupied population. It has done so through: (i) directly bombing UNRWA warehouses, food distribution sites, schools and clinics, killing more than 370 personnel; (ii) defamation campaigns against UNRWA, and (iii) promoting ad hoc pseudo-humanitarian agencies.

51. When Israel alleged, without evidence, that UNRWA staff were involved in the events of 7 October, 18 States immediately suspended funding, uncritically endorsing the Israeli Despite inconclusive investigations, the accused staff were fired and most donors took months to resume contributions to UNRWA. The United States, its largest donor, passed a law to prohibit US funding. When the Israeli Knesset took the unprecedented step of outlawing UNRWA operations by 30 January 2025, only some States took action by seeking an ICJ Advisory Opinion.

52. The brutal attack on the UN system was complemented by its attempted substitution with an Israel–US-controlled aid mechanism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – conceived as early as December 2023, with US support and funding – used aid distribution, through military-run sites staffed with US mercenaries, to facilitate the forced displacement of Palestinians toward Egypt. This seemed to anticipate the so-called “Gaza Riviera” plan, which would have led to Palestinian forced displacement.

53. From March 2025 onwards, amid the total siege-induced famine and the destruction of 23 UNRWA sites in four months, 2,100 unarmed civilians were killed and hundreds of thousands were injured by Israeli forces and US contractors at GHF. Despite this, it was only after President Trump’s “peace plan” that the GHF was disbanded.

54. Instead of opposing this man-made humanitarian catastrophe, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Jordan and the United Kingdom, among others, parachuted aid into Gaza – an expensive, inadequate and dangerous. While purporting to be taking action to ease shortages, this only served to mislead international public opinion while the famine worsened. Naval aid missions to Gaza, attempts by civil society groups to break the siege have been unlawfully intercepted by Israel in international waters – amid silence and inaction by Third States.

55. At several crucial moments, instead of adhering to their legal obligations, Third States have assisted the deterioration of conditions of life, implicating them in the devastating impact caused to the civilian population in dire need.

A. Economic and Trade Relations: the fuel and profits of genocide

56. Israel is heavily reliant on international trade and economic Maintaining normal trade relations despite the illegality of its occupation and systematic human rights and humanitarian law violations – now escalated to genocide – legitimizes and sustains the Israeli apartheid regime. In 2024, international trade in goods and services equaled 54 percent of Israeli GDP (down from 61 percent in 2022). The EU, its largest trade partner, provided almost a third of total trade for the last two years.

57. Imports beyond weapons are vital to secure the goods necessary to sustain the illegal occupation and other unlawful Israeli policies and Many Israeli imports are dual- use goods, which can be used in the production of both civilian and military products. In 2024, these goods accounted for 31 percent of Israeli merchandise imports from the European Union.

58. Exports earned Israel US$474 billion in 2022–2024, fuelling the economy and the fiscal coffers and enhancing its arms manufacturing capacity through the exports of dual-use items. In 2023, integrated circuits became Israel’s top export accounting for 16 percent of Israeli merchandise exports (US$10 billion). Often marketed as civilian technologies, these dual-use items are essential to Israeli military systems that surveil, control and kill Palestinians, reinforcing a military–civilian economic symbiosis and Israel’s role in the global tech-arms. Precision-guided munitions, drones and missile defence systems all rely on such specialized circuits for navigation, radar and control.

59. Israeli trade is reinforced by at least 45 economic cooperation agreements, including with the EU, the US and the UAE (implementing the Abraham Accords). These agreements remove tariff and non-tariff barriers for dual-use and defence goods and services, while often failing to distinguish dealings with the oPt, implicitly recognizing Israeli authority over illegal settlers and their businesses and annexed land.

60. Economic cooperation also extends beyond trade. Since 2014, the European Commission Research and Innovation Framework (since 2021, Horizon Europe) has provided €2.1 billion in grants to Israeli entities in science, technology and innovation, many developing dual-use and military technologies. The programme’s European Innovation Council has also financed 34 Israeli companies with €550 million of equity and blended finance since 2021, making Israel among the highest per capita beneficiaries.

61. Since 1981, the European Investment Bank has financed Israeli entities with €2.7 billion, including €760 million in loans to Bank Leumi, listed on the OHCHR Database. Other agreements include the US–Israel BIRD and US–Israel BSF, the agreement between the Israeli Foreign Trade Risks Insurance Corporation and UAE Etihad Credit Insurance and the China–Israel Innovation Partnership.

62. States have largely avoided action to meet their legal obligations. No trade or economic agreement signed since 1967 has been Only a few States have reduced trade amid the ongoing genocide, most notably Türkiye, which announced the suspension of all trade with Israel in May 2024, resulting in a 64 percent reduction in Turkish-origin imports and near-total cessation of exports in January–August 2025, although some trade has reportedly continued indirectly. Meanwhile, other countries increased their trade with Israel during the genocide, including Germany (+US$836 million), Poland (+US$237 million), Greece (+US$186 million), Italy (+US$117 million), Denmark (+US$99 million), France (+US$75 million) and Serbia (+US$56 million), as well as Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates (+US$237 million), Egypt (+US$199 million), Jordan (+US$41 million) and Morocco (+US$6 million). This countered the trade decline Israel might otherwise have faced (–6 percent).

63. The obligation of Third States to act against international law violations is often incorporated into treaties. For instance, the 1996 Türkiye-Israel Free Trade Agreement conditions cooperation on respect of public policy, morality, international peace, and security. Similarly, the EU–Israel Association Agreement makes human rights and democratic principles an “essential elements clause”. However, these principles remain unfulfilled. A 2024 internal paper of the EU, leaked in August 2025, shows how the EU was determined to preserve business-as-usual despite evidence of Israeli violations of the terms of the agreement in the face of the illegal occupation and genocide. The proposal of the European Commission to cancel core trade preferences on 37 percent of Israeli exports to the EU still awaits approval.

64. Besides the suspension of the trade agreement with Israel, states must also suspend all trade with Israel in dual-use products, as the EU did with Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. In the case of the EU, this represented 38 percent of all EU–Israel trade (US$17.5 billion) in 2024, based on the EU definition of dual use. The largest dual-use trade is in integrated circuits with Ireland, which increased from US$2.2 billion in 2022 to US$3.2 billion in 2024.

56. Energy trade has often been subject to embargoes aimed at bringing countries in line with their international legal obligations: examples include apartheid South Africa and, currently, Russia and Iran. In the case of Israel, only Colombia, which banned coal exports to Israel in 2024, has acted. Russia and the United States were major suppliers of refined fuel products to Israel, while Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Brazil and South Africa continued to supply Israel with essential raw materials. Countries such as Morocco, Italy, France and Türkiye have continued to provide key ports for products, including oil and gas. The European Union and Egypt have continued to import gas from Israel through the Eastern Mediterranean Gas pipeline, which illegally passes through the sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, violating Palestinian sovereign rights. In August 2025, as starvation gripped Gaza, Egypt expanded its partnership with Israel through a US$35 billion natural gas deal – the largest export deal in Israeli history.

66. Trade and the supply of materials and weapons to Israel rely on Third States’ transportation infrastructure. Ports known to have facilitated the trans-shipment to Israel of F-35 parts, weapons, jet fuel, oil and/or other materials include Türkiye, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Greece, Morocco and the US. Airfields in Ireland, Belgium and the United States also support transfers. Many ports also facilitate Israeli gas exports, including via the EMG Pipeline to Port workers in

multiple countries blocked illicit trade in France, Belgium, Italy, Morocco, Sweden, Spain, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Malta, Greece, Crete and the United States. In response, ships and aircrafts often disable transponders to conceal routes: ports (e.g., Morocco) have rerouted shipments and some deliveries go through third-State traders. Belgium, Spain and others have worked to facilitate this transit.

I. Conclusion

67. The genocide in Gaza was not committed in isolation, but as part of a system of global Rather than ensuring that Israel respects the basic human rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people, powerful Third States – perpetuating colonial and racial-capitalist practices that should have long been consigned to history – have allowed violent practices to become an everyday reality. Even as the genocidal violence became visible, States, mostly Western ones, have provided, and continue to provide, Israel with military, diplomatic, economic and ideological support, even as it weaponized famine and humanitarian aid. The horrors of the past two years are not an aberration, but the culmination of a long history of complicity.

68. Third States’ acts, omissions and discourse in support of a genocidal apartheid State are such that they could and should be held liable for aiding, assisting or jointly participating in internationally wrongful acts, within a context of systematic violations of peremptory and erga omnes norms. At this critical juncture, it is imperative that Third States immediately suspend and review all military, diplomatic and economic relations with Israel, as any such engagement could represent means to aid/assist/directly participate in unlawful acts, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

70. Many Third States have operated with the very impunity they have granted Israel. Their disregard for international law undermines the foundations of the multilateral order painstakingly built over eight decades by States and people within the United This will stand in history as an offence not only to justice, but to the very idea of our common humanity. While justice must involve criminal trials – whether in international or domestic courts – accountability extends beyond prosecutions to include reparations: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, by Israel and by Third States that have supported its crimes. The power structures that enabled these heinous crimes must be dismantled, and the international justice system shows the way to do it.

72. The world is watching Gaza and the whole of Palestine. States must step up to their responsibilities. Only by fulfilling the Palestinian people’s right to self- determination, so brazenly violated by the ongoing genocide, can enduring coercive global structures be No state can credibly claim adherence to international law while arming, supporting or shielding a genocidal regime. All military and political support must be suspended; diplomacy should serve to prevent crimes rather than to justify them. Complicity in genocide must end.

VI. Recommendations

71. Recalling her previous recommendations, the Special Rapporteur reminds all States of their legal obligation not to participate in or be complicit with Israeli violations, and to instead prevent and address serious breaches of international law, particularly as set out in the UN Charter and Genocide Convention.

72. Given the enduring emergency unaddressed by current “peace” discussions and plans, the Special Rapporteur urges States to cause no further harm to the Palestinian people and to:

(a) Exert pressure for a complete and permanent ceasefire and full withdrawal of Israeli troops;

(b) Take immediate steps to end the siege in Gaza, including deploying naval and land convoys to ensure safe humanitarian access and mobile housing before winter;

(c) Support the re-opening of Gaza’s international airport and port to facilitate aid delivery.

73. Beyond the emergency, States must recognize Palestinian self-determination and justice as essential to lasting peace and security, and therefore:

(a) Suspend all military, trade and diplomatic relations with Israel;

(b) Investigate and prosecute all officials, corporates and individuals involved in or facilitating genocide, incitement, crimes against humanity and war crimes and other grave breaches of international humanitarian law;

(c) Secure reparations, including full reconstruction and return;

(d) Cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice;

(e) Reaffirm and strengthen support to UNRWA and the UN system as a whole;

(f) Suspend Israel from the United Nations under Article 6 of the UN Charter;

(g) Act under “Uniting for Peace”, in line with General Assembly resolution 377 (V), to ensure that Israel dismantles its occupation.

74. The Special Rapporteur also urges trade unions, lawyers, civil society and ordinary citizens to monitor States’ actions in response to these recommendations, and to continue to press institutions, governments and corporations for boycotts, divestments and sanctions, until the end of the Israeli illegal occupation and related

Document symbol: A/80/492
Download Document Files:  https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/a-80-492-advance-unedited-version.pdf
Document Type: Report
Document Sources: Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967
Subject: Apartheid, Armed conflict, Arms control and regional security issues, Ceasefire, Colonialism, Famine, Gaza Strip, Genocide, Human rights and international humanitarian law, Refugees and displaced persons, War crimes
Publication Date: 20/10/2025
URL source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/a80492-gaza-genocide-collective-crime-report-special-rapporteur-situation

Leave a Comment » | Conflicts and Peace | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jamestan2019

[ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights] Quotes: On ASEAN Envoy to Myanmar’s planned trip to the country next week

27 March 2022

Dear Members of the Press, 

Please see below quotes from Charles Santiago, APHR Chair and a Malaysian MP, on the planned visit to Myanmar by Prak Sokhonn, Cambodian Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and ASEAN Special Envoy on Myanmar, from 21 to 23 March 2022.

“It is absolutely disgraceful that in a week when the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner has released such a damning first report on conditions in Myanmar since the coup, that the Cambodian government of Prime Minister Hun Sen is once again normalizing the illegal junta in Myanmar on multiple levels, having already invited a Myanmar military delegation to the country this week. Hun Sen and Min Aung Hlaing’s contempt for the collective will of ASEAN is seriously damaging the reputation of the bloc and the region.” 

“As ASEAN chair, it is in the Cambodian government’s best interests to strengthen its own, and ASEAN’s, credibility by remaining fully committed to the Five-Point Consensus. It should provide a roadmap to explain how it plans to progress the agreed action points. Instead, Prak Sokhonn’s visit, which comes without any conditions or demands on the junta to meet its obligations under the Five Point Consensus, is a betrayal of the collective decision of ASEAN, and the will of the Myanmar people. We all witnessed how PM Hun Sen’s similarly condition-free visit in January did nothing to deter, and possibly emboldened, the junta to undertake operations the very next day that may amount to crimes against humanity. Cambodia’s continued reckless departure from the ASEAN consensus puts more innocent Myanmar people’s lives at risk from this junta.”

“It is ridiculous that the ASEAN Special Envoy says his visit to Myanmar is aimed at “creating a favourable condition” to end the violence. It is way past time to stop holding hands with these accused war criminals. ASEAN and its Chair must demand the military junta cease all violence and attacks immediately against the people, in line with the five-point consensus agreed by the leaders of ASEAN Member States. Anything less risks giving the military council a licence to commit further crimes against humanity.”

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jamestan2019

[UN News] Myanmar: ‘Meaningful action’ needed to stop the slaughter’ 

6 February 2022

1 February 2022

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1110992

“Now is not the time for more rhetoric, it is time for meaningful action”, said Tom Andrews, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

“The international community must take strong, meaningful steps to cut the junta’s access to weapons, funds and legitimacy”.

People ‘deserve better’
The UN expert reiterated the urgent need for the Security Council to impose an arms embargo on the Myanmar military and significantly increase financial pressure on the junta.

“The fact that one year has elapsed with no Security Council Resolution imposing a comprehensive arms embargo – as arms continue to flow to the junta and kill innocent people – is unacceptable”, he stated.

“The people of Myanmar deserve better from the United Nations”.

‘Criminal enterprise’

The Special Rapporteur said that he would soon release a report identifying the weapons in the junta’s arsenal and where they came from.

Mr. Andrews pointed out that the military junta is functioning as “a criminal enterprise”, committing murder, torture, abductions and forced displacement – while stealing revenue and seizing assets of the people of Myanmar.

“What is worse, they appear to be getting away with it. Their attacks continue unabated. The suffering of the Myanmar people is steadily increasing”, he continued.

Recent months have seen an even further escalation of violence, and a campaign of terror now widespread across the country.

“I have received more reports of mass killings, attacks on hospitals and humanitarian targets, and the bombing and burning of villages”, he added.

Unwavering commitment
“I am amazed at the resilience of the Myanmar people. In the face of aerial assaults, and mass arrest and torture, they continue to strike, to protest, to speak out and to defend themselves. They need and deserve stronger support from the international community”, he said. “The best and worst of humanity is unfolding in Myanmar”.

Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation. The positions are honorary and they are not paid for their work.

New UN humanitarian response plan
Meanwhile, Jens Laerke, Deputy Spokesperson for the UN humanitarian office, OCHA, noted that the newly published 2022 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for Myanmar requests a record $826 million to assist 6.2 million people in need.

The 2022 plan represents double the amount requested last year, reflecting a growing crisis that has plunged an estimated 14.4 million people into humanitarian need.

Since the military coup, conflict and insecurity has continued, displacing more than 400,000 people to camps, displacement sites and with host communities. Many others have crossed into Thailand and India or sought refuge in the jungle, lacking adequate food, shelter, sanitation and medical care.

Sick and hungry
The economic and political turmoil of 2021, combined with the devastating impact of COVID-19, have driven half the population into poverty, with many unable to feed their families.

Over 13 million people are moderately or severely food insecure and malnutrition is expected to worsen among children, unless parental support is increased.

“Our ability to save lives and reduce suffering on this scale will depend on increased funding, improved access and removal of bottlenecks such as visa delays and banking restrictions”, said Mr. Laerke.

“Humanitarian agencies must be allowed access to displacement sites to conduct needs assessments and deliver lifesaving aid including food, water and health care”, he added.

Leave a Comment » | ASEAN, Conflicts and Peace | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jamestan2019

[Joint statement] Letter to the Telenor Group

12 August 2021

Please click here for full statement in PDF.

Gunn Wærsted
Chair of the Board
Telenor Group

cc: Sigve Brekke
President & CEO
Telenor Group

12 August 2021

Dear Mdm. Gunn Wærsted,

Our organizations are writing to express alarm regarding the announcement by Telenor Group to sell off their Myanmar business to M1 Group, and to strongly urge you to reconsider this decision and institute human rights safeguards.

In 2013, Telenor’s application for a telecommunications licence in Myanmar was considered risky as Myanmar was at an early stage in its democratic transition, which recent events have demonstrated was not irreversible.  Nevertheless, we observed that through the years since, Telenor’s operations within Myanmar strived to follow a responsible and human-rights centric approach as required under the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct by Multinational Enterprises, and Telenor’s various other commitments in Norway, Myanmar and globally. 

Telenor Myanmar thereby gained the trust of our organisations and other civil society due to its transparency and engagement within the country, something which is reflected in the open letter by over 460 civil society organisations sent on 14 July 2021. These stakeholders recognise that Telenor has always sought to exercise ‘leverage to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts’ within the constraints posed by the Myanmar regulatory framework, as required by the UNGPs.

We recognise that since the coup, Telenor, like other companies, has come under extreme pressure from the military to take further steps which undermine its responsibility to respect human rights. We realise that you face many challenges, not least protecting the rights of your employees and customers, in addition to commercial and operational challenges.  However, we note that many of these challenges are not unique to Myanmar, and that Telenor continues to operate in other challenging markets such as Pakistan and Bangladesh.

We were therefore surprised and dismayed to learn that Telenor has taken a rapid decision to leave Myanmar, and to sell to the M1 Group. We note that Telenor has done this without seeking the views of the civil society stakeholders with whom it previously significantly engaged on responsible business, including some of our undersigned organisations. Furthermore, we see no evidence that Telenor has undertaken the ‘credible assessment of potential adverse human rights impacts of disengagement’ from Myanmar, required under the UNGPs.  This appears to be a hurried ‘disposal’ rather than a responsible exit.

We note that Telenor Myanmar is currently the subject of a complaint accepted by the Norwegian National Contact Point (NCP) related to possible misuse by the Tatmadaw of the network tower in Alethankyaw. Companies have a responsibility under the UN Guiding Principles, ‘where they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts’, to ‘provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes’.  If Telenor exits Myanmar it should continue to cooperate fully with this NCP process. Furthermore, as the withdrawal itself may cause or contribute to new human rights harms, the potential for these should first be identified through the ‘credible human rights impact assessment’ mentioned above, and this should include consideration both of how to avoid any adverse impacts and how to provide for remedy should they nonetheless occur, even if Telenor no longer has an in-country presence. 

These concerns were raised in a recent second complaint submitted to the NCP against the company by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) on behalf of 474 Myanmar-based civil society organizations. The complaint alleged that Telenor had ‘failed to conduct appropriate risk-based due diligence’, ‘failed to seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts potentially arising from the sale of its Myanmar operations’, ‘failed to meaningfully engage with relevant stakeholders’ and ‘not been transparent in its decision to disengage’. 

Our organisations are of the view that, notwithstanding our major concerns about Myanmar’s regulatory framework for telecommunications and its current application, it might still be more positive from a human rights perspective for Telenor to stay in the market, rather than sell to a buyer such as the M1 Group. We have several serious concerns about M1 Group’s acquisition of your licence, infrastructure, employees, and customers –  including their data – which are detailed below. 

We see no evidence that M1 Group intends to respect human rights.

We note that the M1 Group website does not make any reference to human rights and that M1 is not even a signatory to the most basic international standard for investment companies and private equity, the UN Principles for Responsible Investment. Nor is it a member of the UN Global Compact.  M1 Group, therefore, appears to be an investor that has not expressed even basic commitments to international human rights standards.

M1 Group does not share the commitment to transparency and stakeholder engagement which was an essential part of Telenor’s contribution to the Myanmar telecommunications market, and also does not have the experience or expertise to manage the serious and complex human rights challenges of operating in Myanmar and fulfil its responsibility to respect human rights. We are also concerned to hear from our international partners and read reports of M1 Group’s operations in other telecommunications markets.

Furthermore, through its investment in Irrawaddy Green Towers (IGT),  M1 Group is associated with military businesses which were identified in the August 2019 report of the UN’s Independent Fact-Finding Mission. This analysed the Myanmar military’s economic interests which are alleged to have enabled the most serious international crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These allegations are currently before the world’s highest courts – the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. IGT is included in the 2019 report by virtue of its willingness to have a commercial relationship with MyTel, the operator which is part-owned by the military’s Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC). MEC has, since the coup, been widely sanctioned. 

M1 Group’s operations in other markets do not bode well for how they may operate in Myanmar if they took over from Telenor. M1 Group was co-founded by Najib Mikati – a former Lebanese Prime Minister and recently re-appointed as Prime Minister-delegate –  and his brother Taha Mikati. The oligarch Mikati family have not only been accused of corruption within Lebanon but have a record of entering and exploiting authoritarian markets for profits. The Mikati family’s Investcom conglomerate entered the Syrian market in 2001 soon after Bashar al-Assad took power, to operate one of two cell phone networks in Syria, MTN Syria, and has since complied with government orders’ including filtering and blocking users’ telecommunications particularly during protests to interfere with their ability to coordinate and organize. Following the sale of its Syrian outfit to a South African multinational telecommunications company, MTN Group, M1 Group remains one of the largest shareholders of MTN Group. Investcom also reportedly entered the Sudanese market in 2005, amidst continuing atrocities amounting to genocide in Darfur, and had partnered with a Yemeni businessperson with close ties to former Yemeni dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh. In 2019, Najib Mikati was charged with corruption and illicit enrichment in Lebanon. Earlier this year, the public prosecutor overseeing the case was removed in what the International Commission of Jurists termed an ‘attack on an already enfeebled judiciary’, in line with a ‘long history of utter subordination to the ruling political class in Lebanon’ – a class of which the Mikati family is part.

We note that in 2013, M1 Group bid for an operator’s licence in partnership with MTN and Amara Communications. Amara is owned by U Ne Aung who is a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) by virtue of his (deceased) father, a former General and Minister. His brother, Moe Aung, the current Commander in Chief of the Navy is a close collaborator of Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing. We would like to know what information the team conducting the sale and the Telenor Board sought or received about the actual or potential involvement of these PEPs, or other PEPs and sanctioned individuals, in the transaction.  

We are particularly concerned that Telenor’s Board may not have taken into account the risk that by deciding to embark on this sale, opportunities will open up for military-connected individuals or entities on current sanctions lists to acquire a stake, as has occurred with other divestments in Myanmar or to benefit financially, whether as a broker or as an undeclared beneficial owner. We see this risk as significantly heightened since M1 is an investment company with a questionable long-term commitment to Myanmar, rather than an established telecommunications operator, and therefore more likely to be looking to make an onward sale.  In December 2020, M1 Group, together with co-owner BluStone Management, entered an agreement to sell Irrawaddy Green Towers to another private equity player, CVC. This, together with Telenor’s highly discounted price, leads us to suspect that M1 Group may intend to resell all or part of the asset to other buyers who we believe would not pass Telenor’s due diligence. 

Taking all of this into account, we are both surprised and concerned that a company of Telenor’s standing would contemplate selling their Myanmar business, including their employees and customers, in this risky manner, to a company with no apparent commitment to transparency or human rights.

We, therefore, call upon you to cancel or pause the sale of Telenor Myanmar to M1 Global and to conduct human rights due diligence that is transparent and constitutes the ‘credible impact assessment’ called for by the UNGPs. This should obtain the views of a variety of stakeholders, particularly civil society organisations, human rights defenders and individual users who will be affected if Telenor departs. The due diligence should look at the impacts of potential buyers as well as the option and impact of remaining if satisfactory buyers cannot be identified. The results of such an assessment should be made public and accessible. Any due diligence assessment already conducted by Telenor before this recent decision to sell should also be made accessible to relevant stakeholders in a detailed manner as soon as possible. It should include consideration of how Telenor intends to redress any human rights harms linked to its past activities, or newly imposed by the company’s exit.

We further urge that Myanmar human rights defenders, activists and civil society groups be directly spoken with and consulted by the highest levels of Telenor’s decision-making members. It seems evident that in the most recent sudden decision to sell, this consultation had not been prioritised.

As you will have noted from the comments of various Myanmar stakeholders following your announcement, Telenor is a highly regarded investor in Myanmar.  However, the circumstances of this potential sale risk leaving a bitter taste, and negatively affecting Telenor’s local and global reputation as a responsible business. It will also dent the confidence of the Myanmar people that the Norwegian government, your major shareholder, is committed to the best interests of the Myanmar people. 

We remain open to consultation and eager to contribute to your efforts to respect human rights in Myanmar and beyond. 

Yours sincerely,

The undersigned organizations

  1. Access Now
  2. Advocacy Initiative for Development (AID)
  3. Africa Freedom of Information Center 
  4. ALTSEAN-Burma (Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma)
  5. Change Tanzania Movement
  6. Civil Rights Defenders
  7. Digital Woman Uganda
  8. Free Expression Myanmar
  9. Global Voices
  10. Global Witness
  11. Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)
  12. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
  13. Justice for Myanmar
  14. Kijiji Yeetu
  15. Last Mile4D
  16. Manushya Foundation
  17. MARUAH
  18. Media Matters for Democracy
  19. Norwegian Forum for Development and Environment (ForUM) 
  20. Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative) 
  21. Open Net Association
  22. Organization of the Justice Campaign
  23. Paradigm Initiative
  24. PEN America
  25. Progressive Voice
  26. Ranking Digital Rights
  27. Rudi International
  28. Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
  29. Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.IN)
  30. Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFENet)
  31. Securing Organizations with Automated Policymaking (SOAP)
  32. The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO)
  33. The Peace Centre
  34. Transparency International Czech Republic
  35. Transparency International Norway
  36. Ubunteam
  37. U.S. Campaign for Burma
  38. WITNESS
  39. Yemeni Organization for Development and Exchange of Technology (YODET) 
  40. Zaina Foundation

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jamestan2019

38th Session of the Universal Periodic Review – Review of Singapore [Wed 12 May 3 – 6.30pm (SG time)]

9 May 2021

The Review of Singapore will be broadcast live at http://webtv.un.org/.

Please click here to add a reminder to watch the review live on UN Web TV.

What is the Universal Periodic Review?

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States. The UPR is a State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, which provides the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations. 

As one of the main features of the Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed. The ultimate aim of this mechanism is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur. Currently, no other universal mechanism of this kind exists.

Please click here for more information on the UPR.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jamestan2019

[Repost] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Press Conference Opening Statement – The Toll of 2020!

10 December 2020

9 December 2020

2020 is a year none of us will ever forget. A terrible, devastating year that has scarred so many of us, in so many ways.

At least 67 million people infected, and 1.6 million dead, in a pandemic that is far from over.

A devastating impact on countries’ economies and on employment, income, education, health and food supply for hundreds of millions of people.

A massive setback to development, to efforts to alleviate poverty and to raise the status of women and girls.

2020 has taken its toll not only across all regions and virtually all countries, but also on the full range of our human rights, be they economic, social, cultural, civil or political. COVID-19 has zeroed in on the fissures and fragilities in our societies, exposing all our failures to invest in building fair and equitable societies. It has shown the weakness of systems that have failed to place a central focus on upholding human rights.

Recent weeks have seen extraordinary progress in vaccine development. This is testimony to the ingenuity and determination of humans in a time of crisis. But vaccines alone cannot resolve the pandemic, or heal the damage it has caused.

States need not only to distribute these vaccines equitably all over the world – they need to rebuild economies, repair the damage done by the pandemic, and address the gaps that it has exposed.

We face three very different possible futures:

  • We can emerge from this crisis in an even worse state than when it began – and be even less well prepared for the next shock to our societies.
  • We can struggle mightily to get back to normal – but normal is what brought us to where we are today.
  • Or we can recover better.

The medical vaccines that are being developed will hopefully eventually deliver us from COVID-19, albeit not for many months yet. But they will not prevent or cure the socio-economic ravages that have resulted from the pandemic, and aided its spread.

But there is a vaccine to hunger, poverty, inequality, and possibly – if it is taken seriously – to climate change, as well as to many of the other ills that face humanity.

It is a vaccine we developed in the wake of previous massive global shocks, including pandemics, financial crises and two World Wars.

The name of that vaccine is human rights. Its core ingredients are embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose 72nd anniversary we celebrate tomorrow, on Human Rights Day. The Universal Declaration is made actionable through the obligations that almost all States have undertaken by ratifying one or both of the International Covenants spanning all five areas of human rights.

The Universal Declaration also gave birth to other important international treaties to better protect the rights of specific groups such as children, women, people with disabilities and migrant workers; and ones aiming to tackle forms of discrimination which lead to the greater inequalities, poverty and lack of development that have fed and fertilized the socio-economic devastation caused by COVID-19.

COVID-19 has shone a stark spotlight on our failure to uphold those rights to the best of our ability, not just because we couldn’t, but because we neglected to – or chose not to.

The failure of many countries to invest sufficiently in universal and primary healthcare, in accordance with the right to health, has been exposed as extremely short-sighted. These vital preventive measures are costly, but nothing like as costly as failing to invest in them has proved to be.

Many governments failed to act quickly or decisively enough to halt the spread of COVID-19. Others refused to take it seriously, or were not fully transparent about its spread.

Astoundingly, even to this day, some political leaders are still playing down its impact, disparaging the use of simple measures such as wearing masks and avoiding large gatherings. A few political figures are even still talking casually of “herd immunity,” as if the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives is a cost that can be easily borne for the sake of the greater good. Politicizing a pandemic in this way is beyond irresponsible – it is utterly reprehensible.

Worse still, rather than bringing us together, the response to the pandemic has in some places led to further division. Scientific evidence and processes have been discounted, and conspiracy theories and disinformation have been sown and allowed – or encouraged – to thrive.

These actions have plunged a knife into the heart of that most precious commodity, trust. Trust between nations, and trust within nations. Trust in government, trust in scientific facts, trust in vaccines, trust in the future. If we are to bring about a better world in the wake of this calamity, as our ancestors undoubtedly did in the wake of World War II, we have to rebuild that trust in each other.

It has been shocking, but sadly not at all surprising, to see the disproportionate toll of COVID-19 on individuals and groups who are marginalized and suffer discrimination – in particular people of African descent, those from ethnic, national or religious minorities, and indigenous peoples. This has been the case in some of the world’s richest countries, where the mortality rate of some racial and ethnic minorities has been up to three times that of the overall population.

When COVID-19 hit, members of discriminated groups and indigenous peoples were over-exposed to contagion because of their low-paid and precarious work in specific industries. Many of the people we suddenly started to recognize and refer to as essential – health care workers, cleaners, transport workers, shop employees – come from such minorities.

They were also under-protected because of limited access to health-care and social protections, such as sick leave and unemployment or furlough pay. They were less able to isolate themselves once infected – due to inadequate living conditions, limited access to sanitation, the inability to work from home. This meant the virus could spread much more easily within their communities, and from those communities back into wider society.

Over the past 11 months, the poor have become poorer, and those suffering systemic discrimination have fared worst of all.

Children in homes with limited or no Internet access or computer equipment have fallen behind in their education, or dropped out of it altogether, with girls especially badly affected. In terms of basic economic security, employment, education, housing and food, the pandemic is having a negative impact that is so vast and so wide-ranging it is almost impossible for us to grasp its enormity.

Had adequate social and economic protections been in place for a much higher proportion of the world’s population, in poor countries and in rich ones – had we applied the human rights vaccine – we would not be in such a bad state as we are today. COVID-19 has very clearly demonstrated that inequalities and discrimination not only harm the individuals who are directly affected, and unfairly impacted – they create shock waves that ripple across the whole of society.

This was shown most graphically when the coronavirus ripped its way through shockingly ill-prepared and underequipped institutions such as care homes for older people and people with disabilities, orphanages, migrant dormitories and prisons. A compelling case, if ever there was one, for better regulated institutions and increased alternatives to incarceration.

Those who were most critical to saving lives were themselves inexcusably put at risk, with shortages of masks and protective clothing as the pandemic surged through the wards. Health workers are only some 2-3 percent of national populations, yet they comprise around 14 percent of COVID cases reported to the WHO.

The impact on women has been particularly devastating. Because of the horrendous increase in domestic violence all across the world, and because a large proportion of women work in the informal sector and in health care. And because many were left with no choice but to withdraw from the labour market in order to care for children no longer able to go to school, and for older people and the sick. In some areas, women’s rights risk being set back decades, including through more limited access to sexual and reproductive rights.

If we are to recover better, women will need to play a much greater role in decision-making and priority-setting. It is no coincidence that in a world where so few countries have women leaders, several of the countries viewed as having handled the pandemic most effectively were in fact led by women.

Discrimination also lies at the heart of another of 2020’s defining features, when racial injustice and police brutality were brought sharply into focus by the killing of George Floyd and the worldwide protests that followed. In many countries, we saw a burgeoning realization of persistent racial injustice and systemic racism, raising unresolved histories of racist oppression, and demanding far-reaching structural changes.

In countries in conflict, COVID has added an additional layer to already multi-faceted human rights calamities. In Yemen, a perfect storm of five years of conflict and violations, disease, blockades, and shortage of humanitarian funding, set against an existing backdrop of poverty, poor governance and lack of development, is pushing the country remorselessly towards full-scale famine. There has been no shortage of warnings about what will happen in Yemen in the coming months, but a distracted world is doing little to prevent this very preventable disaster.

Rights to free expression, to assemble and to participate in public life have been battered during the pandemic. Not because of warranted restrictions on movement to constrain the spread of COVID, but by the actions of some governments taking advantage of the situation to shut down political dissent and criticism, including by arresting civil society actors and journalists. Some appear to have also been using COVID fears and restrictions as a way to tilt elections in favour of the ruling party.

The contribution of civil society to surviving the pandemic and recovering better once it is over, will be absolutely vital, and the curtailing of civil society’s contributions is one of the surest ways of undermining that recovery, by removing one of the key remedies.

The pandemic has left us exposed, vulnerable, and weakened. Yet, in its devastation, it has also provided clear insights on how we can turn disaster into an opportunity to reset our priorities and improve our prospects for a better future.

Even with stretched resources, the main ingredient that we need to build that future is political will. The will to put our money where it is most needed – not wanted, needed. The will to fight corruption, because in many countries, even very poor countries, there is more money available, but much is lost when it goes straight into the pockets of a few. We need to address inequality, including with tax reforms that could help fund major socio-economic improvements.

Similarly, richer countries need to help poorer countries survive this crisis and recover better. Repairing the frayed system of multilateralism will be essential to manage the recovery. The work must begin at home, but leaders in powerful countries need to once again recognize that, more than ever, our world can only meet global challenges through global cooperation.

Narrow nationalistic responses will simply undermine collective recovery. The first test of this will be our ability to ensure that new COVID vaccines and tools reach everyone who needs them. The pandemic has highlighted over and over again that no one is safe until everyone is safe.

Will we seize this moment to devise ways to recover better? Will we properly apply the human rights vaccine that can help us build more resilient, prosperous and inclusive societies? Will we take the immediate necessary steps to combat the biggest existential threat of all, climate change?

Let’s hope so. Because if we do not, especially with regard to climate change, 2020 will simply be the first step on the road to further calamity.

We have been warned.

For more information and media requests, please contact: Rupert Colville – + 41 22 917 9767 / rcolville@ohchr.orgor Ravina Shamdasani – + 41 22 917 9169 / rshamdasani@ohchr.orgorLiz Throssell– + 41 22 917 9296 / ethrossell@ohchr.orgor Marta Hurtado – + 41 22 917 9466 / mhurtado@ohchr.org

Tag and share – Twitter: @UNHumanRights and Facebook: unitednationshumanrights

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jamestan2019

2020 International Day of Older Persons: “Pandemics: Do They Change How We Address Age and Ageing?”

24 September 2020

The year 2020 marks the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations and the 30th Anniversary of the International Day of Older Persons (UNIDOP). This year has also seen an emergence of  COVID-19, that has caused an upheaval across the world. Considering the higher risks confronted by older persons during the outbreak of pandemics such as COVID-19, policy and programmatic interventions must be targeted towards raising awareness of their special needs. Recognizing older persons contributions to their own health and the multiple roles they play in the preparedness and response phases of  current and  future pandemics is also important.

This year has also been recognised as the “Year of the Nurse and Midwife”. UNIDOP 2020 will highlight the role of the health care workforce in contributing to the health of older persons, with special recognition of the nursing profession, and a primary focus on the role of women- who are relatively undervalued and in most cases inadequately compensated.

The UNIDOP 2020 event will also promote the Decade of Healthy Ageing (2020-2030) and help bring together UN experts, civil society, government and the health professions to discuss the five strategic objectives of the Global Strategy and Action plan on Ageing and Health while noting the progress and challenges in their realization. The global strategy is well integrated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while ageing issues cut across the 17 goals, especially Goal 3 which aims to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being of all at all ages”. As stated by Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (Director-General, WHO)  “acting on the strategy, is a means for countries to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and ensure that every human being regardless of age will have an opportunity to fulfill their potential in dignity and equality”

The objectives of UNIDOP 2020 are to:

  1. Inform participants about the strategic objectives for the Decade of Healthy Ageing
  2. Raise awareness of the special health needs of older persons and of their contributions to their own health and to the functioning of the societies in which they live
  3. Increase awareness and appreciation of the role of the health care workforce in maintaining and improving the health of older persons, with special attention to the nursing profession
  4. Present proposals for reducing the health disparities between older persons in the developed and developing countries, so as to “Leave no one behind”
  5. Increase understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on older persons and its impact on health care policy, planning, and attitudes.

The event is co-organized by the NGO Committee on Ageing, New York and DESA, and co-sponsored the Permanent Mission of Argentina to the United Nations, in collaboration with the Group of Friends of Older Persons. The event will bring diverse participants from NGOs, Member States, academia and civil society.

The commemorative event will be held virtually on, 1 October 2020 from 9am to 12 pm (New York time).

The International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics is also holding a companion event that will be held virtually on the same day from 1pm to 3pm (New York time).

For more information, please contact ageing@un.org  @UN4Ageing @UNDESASocial #UNUNIDOP2020

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by jamestan2019