Haiti: Human rights in a time of disaster

As many of us are aware, a devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti on January 12, with most of the destruction occurring in the capital, Port au Prince. The death toll is estimated to be at about 200,000 people, with many people still missing, and another 1.5 million people left homeless. The search for survivors continues, as many people are believed to be trapped inside collapsed buildings, even as more quakes and aftershocks continue to beleaguer the already suffering nation.

Amidst the devastation of the earthquake, the protection of Haitians’ basic human rights should be the top priority. Natural disasters such as the Haitian earthquake may destroy infrastructure and order, but they do not alter human rights protections, which require specific protection in such precarious times. Haunting images from the streets of the capital, where thousands of Haitians are now forced to live, show people in great need of food, water, shelter, clothes, and medical supplies. Additionally, the lack of adequate law enforcement personnel in Haiti creates a serious security threat as widespread violence and looting have been reported in Port au Prince.

Because the Haitian government is currently unable to adequately address the needs of its people, the international community has assumed the government’s international obligations by providing humanitarian aid in the form of rescue teams, security troops, and supplies to protect Haitians’ rights to basic needs and security. As required by international standards of disaster relief, special attention must be given to Haitian women and children because of their vulnerability to human rights violations in such an environment. International actors must also ensure that their own activities do not further contribute to human rights violations; aid must be provided equally and indiscriminately.

After basic relief needs are met, protection of Haitians’ human rights must remain a priority. The international community must work with the Haitian government to provide rights beyond basic survival needs, such as the rights to education, health, and work, as well as other political, economic, and cultural rights. International attention must not fade when the initial surprise of the event does and the aftershocks cease. As other survivors of natural disaster will readily attest, the needs of the Haitian people will not end with provision of food, water, and shelter to the displaced persons. The international community should focus on strengthening and rebuilding the Haitian state to provide all human rights protections to its citizens.

The matter of Haitians who seek refuge in other countries, including the United States, must also be addressed. Under international law, individuals have the right not to be forcibly returned to the country they are fleeing if returning would post a threat to their life, security, or freedom. In this regard, the U.S. government has already temporarily suspended deportations to Haiti and has granted temporary protected status to Haitians currently in the U.S., allowing them to reside and work in the U.S. for an additional 18 months. Before initial relief efforts expire, however, the international community should plan how to respect the human rights of Haitian refugees.

The first independent nation in Latin America, Haiti is now widely known only as the Western hemisphere’s poorest nation. The recent earthquake is the latest in a series of hindrances to the country’s progress. To learn a bit more about Haiti, click here for a timeline of key events in Haitian history.

There are many ways for you to aid in Haitian relief efforts. A list of organizations accepting money donations can be found here. Organizations accepting these donations can be found here. For up to date information on Haiti and the relief efforts there, click here.

- By Kacey Mordecai, Legal Intern, International Justice Project

Update regarding Google in China: Meetings and Mobile Phones

A large outcry of support followed Google’s January 12 announcement that it is no longer willing to continue censoring results on Google.cn. This statement by Google is a definite step in the right direction and shows the company’s willingness to take a hard line against the Chinese government. Google is optimistic that it can persuade the Chinese government to agree to changes that will allow the display of uncensored search results. As of Friday, January 15, 2010, Google had not set a deadline for an agreement and, while Google had alerted the Chinese Government to its plan, a spokesperson for Google did not know whether any additional meetings had been scheduled. Pending the results of any agreement with the Chinese government, business will continue as it did before last Tuesday’s announcement. However, while not confirmed as directly related to the dispute with the Chinese government, today Google postponed the launch of its mobile phone in China that was scheduled to occur tomorrow.

For now, the question remains whether Google will have the determination to hold its hard line and follow through on its threat to pull out of China if no acceptable agreement can be reached. Google’s willingness to relinquish a share of the largest internet market in the world would send a powerful message that the company is not willing to compromise the human rights of any people and set an example for other corporations currently doing business in China. We hope that Google will reverse the trend the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. noted so many years ago in stating, “Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.”

For more information on the debate surrounding whether Google will pull out of China click here.

~By Lindsey Ingraham, Legal Intern, International Justice Project

NYTimes Compares Google and Yahoo

In a well-written article in this morning's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof makes the connection:

"By announcing that it no longer plans to censor search results in China, even if that means it must withdraw from the country, Google is showing spine — a kind that few other companies or governments have shown toward Beijing ... Whatever the motivations, it marks a refreshing contrast to Yahoo assisting the Chinese government in sending four dissidents — Shi Tao, Li Zhi, Jiang Lijun and Wang Xiaoning — to prison for terms of up to 10 years."

A refreshing contrast, indeed. As most of our readers know, Human Rights USA represented Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning in their lawsuit against Yahoo!, which settled in 2007.

For more information on the recent cyberattacks, the companies and people impacted, and the human rights community's reaction, click here.

Taylor Civil Trial Update: The Price of Justice

Happy 2010 to all of you from all of us at Human Rights USA! We hope that your new year is off to a wonderful start. As many of you know, 2009 was financially unkind to many non-profits and, unfortunately, Human Rights USA was no exception. Thankfully, we have not had to close our doors… but we continue to face severe financial constraints in our efforts to uphold human rights around the world. And such efforts sometimes carry a large price tag, as a tally of the many expenses we incurred in recent months to bring the civil case against Charles Taylor, Jr. reveals. We believe the fight to support human rights is worth every penny. But if we are going to continue this work – WE NEED YOUR HELP.

We invite you to support a piece of history by sponsoring a part of the civil case. A donation of $2,600 covers the cost of one client's air travel from Liberia to Miami to testify at trial. $448 covers the cost of our attorney's vaccinations prior to travel to Liberia to meet with our clients and gather information for trial. $400 covers the cost of one client's or attorney's lodging over the course of the trial. Your donation of $350 would cover the cost of filing the Complaint. Each donation of $131 would cover the cost of one visa for entry from Liberia into the United States to participate in trial. $75 covers the cost of one of our attorney's "pro hac vice" appearance in the federal court. $40 would cover the cost of the bag lunches we made for our attorneys and clients during the trial. And a donation of $25 would cover the cost of producing photographic exhibits for trial. We ask you to take a moment to decide what amount you can afford to give and then click here to own a part of this case…and to continue assisting survivors of human rights abuses to hold the violators accountable.

IN THE NEWS: Googling Human Rights

Every now and again, we have the welcome opportunity to congratulate a corporation for good human rights practices. Today we say "Bravo!" to Google for taking a stand to support human rights. Yesterday, the internet company disclosed information about attacks on its infrastructure originating in China. During its own investigation into what initially looked like corporate espionage, Google found "evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists." Google's investigation also revealed that hackers targeted "dozens" of other gmail accounts used by people around the world who support human rights in China.

As a result, Google announced: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

Google has always distinguished between censorship and surveillance -- and rightly so. When corporations help governments to censor the information people can access, they are helping that government to violate the right to information. That's not ideal, but it differs from providing a government with the tools to repress free speech and target human rights activists. Consciously providing a government with the technology to quash dissent, and to identify, arrest, and torture advocates who are exercising their right to free speech makes a corporation a partner in crime. (Rebecca MacKinnon is a good source a more thorough discussion of this issue.)

Google recognized this distinction years ago and decided not to fall into the latter category. Recognizing the risks human rights defenders may face online, the company conscientiously avoided allowing its servers to retain individual user information connected to content -- for example, blogging or chat services -- in China.

Despite the corporation's good intentions, Google has found it difficult to continue operating its censored searches in China without being complicit in that government's surveillance of human rights advocates. By taking a stand, Google is upholding its commitments to the principles of the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary code of ethics created by "a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics ... to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector."

Go Google. We hope other corporations take notice.

IN THE NEWS: Lindsay Harrison of Jenner & Block

Human Rights USA would like to thank and congratulate Lindsay Harrison of Jenner & Block LLP for her determination and success in the case of Jean Marc Nken. The National Law Journal has honored Ms. Harrison with one of its 2009 Pro Bono Awards, given to "lawyers doing exemplary work upholding the principle that justice shouldn't be contingent on one's ability to pay." As our pro bono partner and the lead attorney on the Nken case, Ms. Harrison successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit's standard for a stay of removal was unduly strict and incorrect as a matter of law. Human Rights USA brought the Nken case to the attention of Jenner & Block after the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his bid for asylum earlier in the year.

We encourage our supporters to read the article to learn more about Ms. Harrison's achievements and the long process that brought Mr. Nken's case before the Supreme Court.