Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1347

Украина-Россия: членство в НАТО, права человека и мир (English: https://bit.ly/3JR8Bzs)

Украина-Россия: членство в НАТО, права человека и мир

English: https://hrwf.eu/ukraine-russia-nato-membership-human-rights-and-peace/

Аарон Родс для организации «Права человека без границ» (Human Rights Without Frontiers)

HRWF (23.02.2022) – По мере выдвижения российских «миротворческих» войск на запад для «защиты» самопровозглашённых республик в составе суверенной Украинской территории, многие обвиняют Организацию Североатлантического договора (НАТО).

Объясняя свои действия в обращении к нации 21 февраля, президент Российской Федерации Владимир Путин заявил, что «США и НАТО приступили к беззастенчивому освоению территории Украины как театра потенциальных военных действий». Но западные критики также часто заявляли, что с 1989г. «расширение НАТО на восток» было империалистическим, бесцеремонным, или, во всяком случае, недостаточно осмотрительным шагом, а по мнению некоторых аналитиков, «расширение НАТО», рассматриваемое как организованная стратегия доминирования, вызвало негативные тенденции в политическом развитии Российской Федерации.

И российские, и западные критики расширения НАТО методично отрицали какую-либо роль или действия граждан государств, которые осознанно выбрали этот путь, а также их основания для этого. И «диванные» эксперты в области геополитики, и авторитарные государственные деятели на востоке либо сознательно игнорируют, либо неправильно истолковывают политическую динамику привлечения новых членов НАТО для граждан государств постсоветского пространства. И если членство в НАТО воспринимается как гарантия безопасности от нападения иностранных государств, его последствия для внутреннего, политического развития страны и защиты прав человека по большей части упускаются из виду.

На самом деле, именно политические, а не связанные с обеспечением безопасности аспекты вступления в НАТО способствуют тому, что так много граждан стран с переходной экономикой стремятся к тому, чтобы их государства присоединились к Североатлантическому альянсу. Представителям динамичного гражданского общества Украины, выступающим за членство в НАТО, несомненно, небезразлична свобода и суверенитет их родины – вступление в НАТО почти наверняка предотвратило бы раскол и дробление Украины, которое мы сегодня наблюдаем.

Однако, какое бы важнейшее значение не имели эти преимущества, еще больше демократическое гражданское общество привлекает к вступлению в НАТО тот факт, что государства, подписавшие Североатлантический договор 1949 года, взяли на себя обязательства осуществления гражданского и демократического контроля над своими вооруженными силами, а также обеспечения общественной прозрачности в отношении системы распределения, планирования и управления материальными средствами на нужды обороны. По мере увеличения числа государств, которые обращались за рассмотрением их членства в НАТО в 1990-е годы, они должны были соответствовать все более обширным, демократически ориентированным критериям в рамках «Партнерства ради мира». В соответствии с законодательством США все страны, обращающиеся за помощью о соответствии критериям НАТО должны быть оценены с точки зрения того, насколько ситуация с правами человека соответствует уставу ООН, Всеобщей декларации прав человека и Хельсинкскому Заключительному акту. Задача оценивания стран-кандидатов для вступления в Альянс была возложена на Комиссию по безопасности и сотрудничеству в Европе, независимое двухпартийное правительственное агентство при Конгрессе США, выполняющее функции мониторинга и анализа. Комиссия анализировала «обеспечение верховенства закона, а также приверженность ценностям, принципам и политическим обязательствам, изложенным в Хельсинкском Заключительном акте» и его последующих документах, а также другим международным стандартам прав человека.

Соблюдение странами-членами НАТО принципов прав человека было справедливо поставлено под сомнение в ряде случаев, в частотности, в отношении Турции, где «основы верховенства закона последовательно разрушались, а экономика страны страдает от непродуманной политики и многолетного кумоства». Однако, НАТО – это альянс, а не образование, отражающее морально-этическую неоднородность мирового сообщества, члены которого в основном разделяют фундаментальные принципы цивилизованного общества. Статья 2 Североатлантического договора гласит, что «договаривающиеся стороны будут содействовать дальнейшему развитию мирных и дружественных международных отношений путем укрепления своих свободных учреждений, путем достижения лучшего понимания принципов, на которых основаны эти учреждения, и путем развития условий, обеспечивающих стабильность и благосостояние. Они будут стремиться устранять конфликты в своей экономической международной политике и будут поощрять экономическое сотрудничество между всеми ими или любыми из них».

Разумеется, эти слова находят отклик у всех людей, которых заботит их собственная политическая свобода, мир с соседними государствами и дружеские отношения с ними. Они утверждают, что свободные общества не воюют с другими государствами. Действительно, для «военного» договора формулировки достаточно философские: когда в договоре говорится о достижении «лучшего понимания принципов, на которых основаны эти учреждения», в нем косвенно подразумевается роль независимых политических сил в воспитании морально-нравственных ценностей и критического мышления. Демократические государства не могут оставаться безучастными, они должны постоянно подпитывать свой политический курс и институты честными диалогом об основополагающих принципах.

Во многих случаях борцы за демократию и правозащитники по этой причине рассматривали членство в НАТО не со стратегической точки зрения, не как защиту от вторжения, а как гарантию того, что недемократические и милитаристские силы в их собственных государствах будут изолированы окончательно и бесповоротно.

Сегодня, когда российские войска ведут захват территории Украины в значительной степени из-за вопроса вступления Украины в Североатлантический Альянс, всем нужно тщательно изучить морально-этическую сторону договора. России нечего опасаться, так как членство в НАТО будет способствовать тому, что украинские вооруженные силы будут находиться под демократическим контролем, которое обеспечит открытость действий вооруженных сил Украины и сотрудничества с НАТО в соответствии с Договором. Другими словами, Украина будет обязана придерживаться принципа ненападения.

Российскому народу тоже нужны гарантии безопасности НАТО, с учетом усиливающихся позиций Китая в стремлении к мировому господству. Принимая во внимание последние события, гарантии защиты от военного авантюризма становятся все более актуальными. Очевидно, что российская внешняя политика сегодня определяется решениями одного человека, отдающего приказы группе безропотных функционеров. В стране отсутствуют верховенство закона, демократический надзор или ответственность. Ничего сегодня не может быть важнее для безопасности российского народа, чем свободные институты и гражданский контроль над представляющей опасность военной мощью страны.

Аарон Родс – старший научный сотрудник «Общества здравого смысла» (the Common Sense Society) и президент организации «Форум религиозной свободы – Европа» (the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe). Он занимал должность исполнительного директора Международной хельсинкской федерации по правам человека с 1993 по 2007 гг.

CHINA: The European Parliament stands with the people of Hong Kong

By Dr Zsuzsa Anna Ferenczy for Human Rights Without Frontiers

HRWF (22.01.2022) – On January 20, the European Parliament voted with an overwhelming majority (585 in favor, 46 against, 41 abstentions) in support of an urgency resolution on violations of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong. The resolution comes in the midst of a complex reality of EU-China relations; views regarding China continue to harden as Beijing doubles down on threats and retaliation against the bloc, just as the Beijing Winter Olympics are scheduled to begin in just a few weeks’ time.

Human rights have long been a thorny issue in bilateral relations. But while in 2016 the EU committed to engaging China in a “principled, practical and pragmatic”, and in 2019 even labeled it a “systemic rival”, the EU has thus far failed to hold China accountable for its human rights violations, including for its crackdown on Hong Kong’s freedoms. In the meantime, China has become more assertive in deflecting international criticism of its ‘internal affairs’ and more willing to use economic coercion in order to achieve its goals.

Notwithstanding a growing convergence across the EU on the need to rethink its China policy and to increase its strategic capabilities, there is no unified EU-stance on China, as there is no shared approach to a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics. This has emboldened Beijing to use its clout inside the bloc to undermine democracy through influence operations and by weaponizing trade, seeking to ensure that the path the EU takes is favorable to the pursuit of its own national interests.

Against this backdrop, as one of the most vocal institutions of the EU regarding the respect of fundamental freedoms, the European Parliament has kept human rights on top of its own agenda. It has urged the European Commission and the European External Action Service, as well as member states not to shelve human rights to the benefit of trade with China. The EP has been the leading voice of a conceptual shift inside the EU towards more realism and less naïveté in its engagement of China, including expanding ties with Taiwan, shaping the EU’s willingness to pursue strategic interests.

As such, last May Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted in support of freezing the legislative process for ratifying the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with China until Beijing lifts sanctions against MEPs. For the first time since the EU arms embargo in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square massacre, Brussels imposed sanctions against four Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang, accusing them of “arbitrary detentions and degrading treatment inflicted upon Uyghurs and people from other Muslim ethnic minorities, as well as systematic violations of their freedom of religion or belief”.

Beijing responded with its own sanctions on European lawmakers, members of the EU’s Human Rights committee (DROI), the EU’s main foreign policy decision-making body and several think tanks in the EU, including Germany’s Mercator Institute for China Studies.

The resolution on Hong Kong “condemns in the strongest terms the fact that freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of the press are as severely restricted in Hong Kong as they are in China”. It reiterates solidarity with the people of Hong Kong, deplores the political persecution to which many journalists, who are now in exile or in jail, have been subjected, and “calls on China to ensure that all journalists can conduct their work freely and without impediments and fear of reprisals”.

The resolution further stresses that the National Security Law, which Beijing imposed in June 2020 bypassing the Hong Kong legislature, “prevents a relationship of trust between China and the EU” and undermines future cooperation as well as leads to a further erosion of Beijing’s credibility on the international stage. Beyond Hong Kong, the text condemns China’s coercion and intimidation against Lithuania and urges the EU to defend the basic principles of the Single Market. The EU is at present in the process of preparing a new anti-coercion instrument to reinforce its resilience by addressing its vulnerabilities so that it can better defend its interests, which is expected to take months.

In the plenary debate preceding the vote, Slovak MEP Miriam Lexmann (EPP), Co-Chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), said the resolution reflects strong cross-party consensus to stand with the people of Hong Kong, but “concrete action” must follow on an EU-level, including on Lithuania, as it faces China’s economic coercion. Lithuanian MEP Petras Auštrevičius (EPP) noted that the EU must take immediate and firm action to prevent the ongoing coercive policy against Lithuanian and international companies. “It is time to react”, he said.

In the words of German MEP Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens/EFA), Chair of the Delegation for relations with the People’s Republic of China, it is important that the EP remains a champion of the defence of democracy and human rights, calling on member states to join forces as China continues to show willingness to break international rules to pursue its hegemonic goals.

Supported by several colleagues, Belgian MEP Maria Arena (S&D), Chair of DROI, emphasized that there should be no diplomatic representation at the Beijing Olympics. “If we want to protect our friends in Hong Kong or brave Lithuania, we Europeans must more coherently and loudly stand up to Chinese aggression”, added Czech MEP Marketá Gregorová (Greens/EFA), who recently visited Taiwan as Coordinator of the EP’s Special Committee for foreign interference in all domestic processes in the EU, including disinformation (INGE).

On behalf of the EU High Representative Josep Borrell, Commissioner Stella Kyriakides condemned the National Security Law, saying China uses it to stifle the exercise of fundamental freedoms. While China claims the situation in Hong Kong is an internal matter, the EU rejects this, she said, adding that the EU will continue to stand by the people of Hong Kong.

Although the EP resolution is a legally non-binding document, it contributes to the European Parliament’s efforts to champion human rights in the world. It is now time for member states to finally get serious about China.

Zsuzsa Anna FERENCZY Ph.D.

Postdoctoral Fellow, Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan

Non-resident Fellow, Taiwan Next Generation Foundation

Research Associate, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Consultant on China, Taiwan, Korea at Human Rights Without Frontiers

Head of Associates Network, 9DASHLINE

zsuzsa@9dashline.com

twitter: @zsuzsettte

Ukrainian MPs endanger independence of key anti-corruption body

– With 239 votes, Ukrainian MPs appointed scandalous and much-criticized members to the commission that will select the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, a key anti-corruption institution.
Article by: Olena Makarenko

Euromaidan Press (18.09.2020) – https://bit.ly/2ElIGE0 – On 17 September, Ukrainian MPs voted for a decision that puts international financial support for the country under risk and threatens the independence of a key anti-corruption institution.

In particular, the Parliament voted for the members of the commission which selects the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Previously, NGOs fighting against corruption, Ukraine’s international partners, as well as pro-democratic politicians pointed at the lack of qualification and integrity among the candidates to the commission suggested by the corresponding parliamentary committee. Still, the majority of the MPs ignored these issues and supported the candidates. European representatives responded by hinting that Ukraine’s visa-free regime with the EU and a EUR 1.5 bn tranche now be up in the air.

Why is the Specialized Anti-Corruption Office so important?

The Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) is a new institution created in 2015 to fight top corruption, together with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). While the NABU investigates cases on top-corruption, the SAPO provides procedural supervision for such cases. Afterward, the two direct such cases to the High Anti-Corruption Court, created in 2019. Previously, the top-corruption cases were directed to ordinary courts.
Over the five years of their work, NABU and SAPO directed over 260 cases to courts.

Previously in Ukraine, government top-officials, MPs, and other influencers were considered untouchable. Therefore, before the NABU and the SAPO existence, Ukrainians have never seen investigations on top corruption.

The procedure for selecting the head of the SAPO

The head of the SAPO is selected for five years. The terms of powers of the previous one, Nazar Kholodnytskyi, would have expired in November 2020. However, he resigned two months earlier.

In the process of creation of the SAPO, Ukrainian civil society and politicians together with Ukraine’s international partners focused on how to make the procedure of selection of its head transparent and fair. Otherwise, there was a high chance that those potential corrupts investigated by the NABU and the SAPO would influence the institution through its head.

They arrived at a solution when the head of the SAPO is selected by a Commission consisting of 11 persons. Four out of them are nominated by the Prosecutor’s Council. Seven are nominated by the Parliament.

What is the scandal around the members of the Commission about?

Earlier this year already, the prosecutors nominated their representatives. Society had no questions regarding them – unlike the candidates suggested by the Parliament’s Committee on Law Enforcement.

Previously, the candidates supported by the committee did not find the needed support in the Parliament.
On 17 September, from the third attempt, the MPs finally supported them with 239 votes, despite all the criticisms.

In particular,
• President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party gave 172 votes,
• pro-Russian Opposition Platform for Life – 30,
• For the Future (associated with oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi) – 18,
• the group Dovira – 11,
• and independent candidates – 8.

Petro Poroshenko’s European Solidarity, Yuliya Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna, and Voice did not give a single voice.

The core of the scandal around the candidates voted in by the parliament concerns their inconsistencies with provisions of the Ukrainian legislation. In particular, the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office says that the members of the commission which select the head of the SAPO have to have “significant experience of activities in the field of preventing and or combating corruption.” Instead, the majority of the members elected from the Parliament don’t have such experience at all. Neither do the members have an impeccable business reputation, high professional and moral qualities, and public credibility, as prescribed by the law.

Also, among the members supported by the Parliament, nobody corresponds to the requirements of being appointed as the head of the commission. According to the law, the commission should be headed by a person from the Parliament’s quota.

Due to all of these inconsistencies with the Ukrainian legislation, Ukraine’s western partners started warning Ukraine on the consequences of the support of the Parliament’s candidates before and after the voting.

What was the reaction of Ukraine’s international partners?

A transparent procedure corresponding to the necessary criteria for selection of the new head of SAPO was one of the conditions for providing a new EUR 600 mn of EU macro-financial support. As well, its violation can launch the process of suspending and canceling the EU visa-free regime.

And the reaction was swift. (See https://bit.ly/2ElIGE0)

Earlier this month, Ambassadors of the G7 published a statement underscoring the importance of merit-based selection processes for heads of anti-corruption institutions:

Also, Gerry Rice, the director of the IMF Communications Department, informed that the development of the IMF’s programs on the financial support of Ukraine will depend on whether the anti-corruption bodies (the NABU, the SAPO, and the Anti-Corruption Court) will manage to preserve their independence.

What did the Servant of the People, the party which gave most of the votes, say?

David Arakhmamia, the head of the Servant of the People faction, told journalists he is not going to react to Viola von Cramon-Taubadel’s statement regarding the possible cancellation of Ukraine’s visa-free regime with the EU and the EUR 1.5 bn tranche.

He said that the EU Association Agreement documents do not mention the SAPO, and that the MEP’s words were rumors: “[The Association Agreement] does not mention the SAPO; it mentions the independence of the anti-corruption structures. This we support and will follow,” Arakhamia said.

Previously, Dmytro Kuleba, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine stated that there are no threats to visa-free travel between Ukraine and the EU.

What did the President’s Office answer?

Following the voting for the Commission members, the President’s Office also reacted, saying that it took the Parliament’s decision, as well as societal criticism which followed it, into consideration. In a statement, it said that even a strict competition process does not automatically guarantee the independence of the future head of the institution.

“Therefore, we urge all participants of the public debate on the activities of the anti-corruption infrastructure of the state to refrain from excessive emotions, as well as from speculative assessments of the work of specific individuals in administrative positions in anti-corruption bodies. The path on overcoming corruption is also a mandatory component for the European and Euro-Atlantic integration of our country.”

But actually, there are no legal instruments for the President’s Office to influence the Parliament’s decision.

How can this influence the SAPO?

The members of the commission which will select the SAPO head from the Parliament’s quota can promote candidates loyal to some particular political forces.

The head of the SAPO can sabotage cases which means their chances to be considered properly in the court decrease.

SAPO’s previous head, Nazar Kholodnytskyi, was noticed sabotaging cases himself.

Still, in general, the very existence and the work of the SAPO is evaluated positively by Ukrainian anti-corruption NGOs.

“Still, Kholodnytskyi himself is not the SAPO; prosecutors make up the SAPO. I think the majority of prosecutors are ethical,” Vadym Valko, Automaidan NGO lawyer and Secretariat of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau’s Public Control Council analyst says, pointing at the particular investigations into the most corrupt, including MPs, being directed to courts.

Therefore, even in the worst-case scenario, the SAPO will be able to independently work on the cases no matter who is the head for some time.

The competition for the position of the head of the SAPO should be completed by 30 November.

Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1395

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1395

Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1396

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1396

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1397