Skip to content

Humanitarian responses to the war in Ukraine: Stories from the grassroots

Article by Andra-Lucia Martinescu

April 6, 2023

Humanitarian responses to the war in Ukraine: Stories from the grassroots

Two journeys: mobilising through grassroots networks.
When Anna and her family of four were evacuated from Inhulets in Mykolaiv Oblast (southern Ukraine), they left their entire livelihoods behind to relocate to relative safety, a story of displacement that mirrors millions of others. Two British independent volunteers brought Anna and her children to a shelter in Odesa, a safe haven for hundreds of thousands of refugees, evacuated from de-occupied regions. Since the outbreak of a full-scale war last year, perhaps hundreds of British nationals left for Ukraine to provide humanitarian assistance, conducting evacuations and supply runs in hard-to-reach areas, often driving their personal cars into the warzone. In some cases, their unmandated and decentralised voluntarism has morphed into an expeditionary rescue network that spans the vast geography of Ukraine (and beyond). Anna safely reached Odesa on 15 February with meagre belongings and no winter provisions. Her baby daughter’s pram was also left behind.

 

The journey of another baby pram starts in Purley, South Croydon, at a local, suburban parish. Here, another decentralised ecosystem is fledging. The church’s hall has become a collection point manned by British-Ukrainian charities and their volunteers who pooled resources together to sustain humanitarian efforts in the long term. In December, a local family donated a pram, which was packed, loaded, and shipped to Ukraine along with 10 tonnes of winter supplies. It reached Odesa on the 15th February, the same day as Anna, her children, and her baby daughter were brought to safety by the two British volunteers. And so, the two journeys converge in a story of resilience and compassion.

 

What these networks of humanitarian activism accomplish often goes unnoticed, but perhaps, more than a year into the war, it is worth shifting our perspective to the grassroots impact of humanitarian interventions. While the trauma of living under Russian occupation remains unspoken, the hardships of this precarious mobility, of these families’ journeys to safety, can be somewhat relieved. For instance, an item as basic as a baby pram can bring solace even in the midst of unimaginable terror.

 

Two impulses: what drives people to the rescue?
There are, of course, many others who left the comfort of their (mostly Western) homes to come to the rescue, despite a modicum of knowledge about Ukraine or the region. However, in a war so disproportionate in terms of capabilities, strengthening Ukraine’s capacity to resist becomes a strategic imperative for the democratic world in its entirety, and a whole-of-society approach (whether domestic or transnational) is the most effective response in redressing material imbalances. The presence of self-mandated foreign volunteers and the sustained contribution of grassroots (solidarity) networks are of paramount importance to the multifaceted humanitarian effort, and ought to continue unabated, despite criticisms that it lacks institutionalisation or oversight. But it is equally important to engage reflexively with the impact of such grassroots interventions and the motivating factors simmering beneath. As one Ukrainian friend and long-time civic activist insightfully told me once: ‘There are volunteers and volunteers…’, the meaning of which I grasped only later.

 

The public nature of this war has, to a certain degree, historical correspondence in the paradigmatic shifts prompted by the Spanish Civil War. Thenvisual coverage and reporting from the frontlines, conducted by prominent cultural figures and disseminated through various mediums, internationalised the conflict often acting as an instrument for foreign mobilisation.[1] At the time, the ideological battlefield was also exacerbated by the intelligentsia’s political engagement with a cause, which many perceived from a partisan lens without ever stepping foot on Spanish soil (before joining the international brigades).[2]

 

But no matter how binary taking sides may appear to the outside public, personal motivations are in fact a complex mixture of belief systems, ideological inclinations, and at times opportunistic pursuits, which need careful discerning. Subjective narratives built around the act of helping can indeed take negative turns and twists. In my interactions with (foreign) independent or affiliated volunteers, I, unfortunately, witnessed such cases, whereby allegedly supporting Ukraine’s most afflicted became a personal crusade, with disastrous consequences.

 

A middle-aged man from the Midlands drove his car into the warzone to help evacuate the vulnerable, delivering supplies and assisting local charities in their local distribution. I met him in Romania at a humanitarian warehouse last summer, but subsequent conversations pointed to an increasingly disruptive behaviour. Perhaps one telling indicator was the volunteer’s steadfast belief that his unmandated humanitarianism ought to grant him a privileged status. Volunteers from abroad can stay up to 90 days in Ukraine and a special residence permit would be required for an extended period, as well as proof of affiliation with a local organisation. Paradoxically, he outrightly refused to comply with Ukrainian law, which prompts the question: why such disregard for the legal requirements of a country he purportedly intends to support? He is a salient example of how personal motivations or myopic perceptions disconnect the humanitarian effort from the wider, long-term implications for Ukraine’s political future and body politic. Such sporadic (hopefully isolated) attitudes often disregard the civil society’s fight for substantive reforms in a country long afflicted by entrenched corruption and a selective application of the rule of law.

 

In hindsight, the case is also revealing in terms of othering practices that tend to disenfranchise local agency, under the tutelage of civilised saviourism. As my activist friend recounted: “some [volunteers] can be in Ukraine for months on end, some even doing admirable work but without actually learning anything about our country”. As is sadly the case, some may not even wish to learn.

 

In effect, the geographical proximity of this tragic war facilitated the spontaneous mobilisation of individuals who may not have otherwise participated in relief efforts. But citizen aid, decentralised networks and volunteer humanitarians are part and parcel of an almost titanic effort in support of Ukraine’s resistance. It is not the institutionalisation of these grassroots initiatives that I argue for. On the contrary, rigid, bureaucratic hierarchies tend to hamper the effectiveness of such interventions. However, a more reflexive approach as to what motivates voluntary participation in a warzone could help address legitimacy issues surrounding ground-up mobilisation and advocacy.

 

Photo courtesy of the CF Manifest Mira humanitarian team.

 

[1] ​​Perhaps the most notorious examples, novelists Marta Gellhorn and Ernest Hemingway, though many others documented the Spanish Civil War.

 

[2] Paul Preston (May 2022). ‘From the role of international volunteers to debates about Western intervention, there are many comparisons to be made between Ukraine and the Spanish Civil War’ in LSE Blogs. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ukraine-spanish-civil-war/. 

 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

 

Footnotes
    Related Articles

    The Moment of Truth: A year on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

    Article by Bohdan Nahaylo

    April 4, 2023

    The Moment of Truth: A year on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

     

    A year on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chief Editor of The Kyiv Post, Bohdan Nahaylo reflects on the war and its wider global implications.

     

    Nobody expected the genocidal war that Russia unleashed against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, to happen. Yes, we saw the build-up of Russian forces on Ukraine’s border and heard the threats from the Kremlin.

    And there were warnings, of course. We even heard them from the American President. But I think we were all in denial, thinking that this was bluff, sabre-rattling and blackmailing by Moscow and that Putin would never go ahead with such a dastardly, barbaric, deed.

     

    But he did

    When it happened, we were all caught in shock. In Ukraine, initially, it was not even a case of panic. It was a question of trying to reassure ourselves that we had the will, strength, courage and forces not only to resist but to fight back and defeat such a seemingly powerful and unstoppable enemy.

     

    Ukraine passed this test, and slowly but surely, at an increasingly faster pace, it also began receiving the crucial support that it needed from the West, from those who have become, in effect, de facto, its allies.

     

    Despite the horrific losses of people, immense damage, and temporary loss of territory that Ukraine has suffered as a result of Russia’s war crimes, Ukraine managed not only to stand firm but to regain ground and is poised to achieve victory in the not-so-distant future.

     

    Ukraine’s president and leadership have risen to the historic occasion; its heroic armed forces have made it proud and confident; and the nation has remained united in its determination to defeat the invaders.

     

    And now?

    We’re at a very delicate stage. Ukraine is desperate for the weapons it needs – the long-range artillery, rockets and fighter planes if possible. Its forces are brave, dependable, and well organised, so this is not a problem. The challenge is to withstand the pressure from the very crude methods that Russia employs in its understanding of warfare by throwing masses of cannon fodder at the Ukrainian forces, and by firing missiles in a cowardly manner from long range into our cities, trying to destroy our infrastructure and also to undermine the morale of the Ukrainians.

     

    But if the weapons Ukraine needs arrive in time from its supporters – and they are certainly beginning to be delivered from a host of diverse but united sources ranging from the US and UK to Poland and other European states – it will withstand any new offensives that Russia attempts to launch in the early spring and then go on the offensive and on to victory.

     

    We’re the heart of the matter

    Ukrainians are strengthened by the fact that for more than a year Ukraine has been the centre of international attention all over the planet, not only in the countries sympathetic to Ukraine, but in Asia, Latin America, and to some extent within China and India. Even in Russia, with all the distortions notwithstanding, coverage of the Ukrainian issue – and the country’s aspiration to be a sovereign, democratic Western state – is a remarkable achievement in itself. Moreover, the vast number of journalists and politicians visiting Ukraine has also helped the world to discover Ukraine.

     

    For many decades, if not centuries, Ukraine and its people had to endure in their predicament under various rulers in virtual obscurity. Now, finally, to paraphrase Gabriel Garcia Marquez, its One Hundred Years of Solitude have ended. Suddenly Ukraine has been rediscovered as a European nation which was unjustly kept off the radar screen by force of circumstances. On its fate depends so many things, ranging from international security to whether some regions of the world will face food shortages because of Russia’s attempts to block the export of Ukrainian grain, energy shortages, and rising prices.

     

    Moscow would like the world to view its war as a local, backyard, conflict wherein the Kremlin is simply regaining ‘Russian’ imperial territory that it was forced to give up. But the war that Russia has launched against Ukraine clearly has a much greater significance for the entire world. It has undermined the international order, and challenged fundamentals – the very notion of Europe and European security and indeed, international security as we understand it – the very basic principles on which the UN Charter is based.

     

    Russia’s cynical actions have exposed the ineffectiveness of international institutions, such as the UN and the OSCE, that are supposed to prevent wars, invasions, war crimes, genocide and nuclear threats. They have forced the democratic world out of its complacency and united it around the need to defend not only its security but also basic democratic values.

     

    The struggle is not just about our independence

    Ukrainians are fighting for their independence and their identity, but they’re also defending the idea of a democratic, peaceful, prosperous, united Europe. They are defending European ideals and Europe’s borders, and in doing so are also serving as a catalyst in Europe’s reshaping and consolidation.

     

    After all, we are witnessing a historic reconfiguration of Europe and what it represents. Britain left the EU after Brexit but on account of the war has become a far stronger European autonomous player on the international scene and a staunch supporter of Ukraine. Poland, the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, and Romania have also gelled together as a force to be reckoned with. So, in the east of Europe, another healthy and much-needed counterbalance to the would-be domination by Berlin and Paris has emerged. Britain has played a leading role in this regard and its principled stance and sterling support for Ukraine have won the admiration and appreciation not only of Ukrainians but many other nations. Britain, in this regard, has set the tone.

     

    In Eastern Europe, Moldova now has a pro-Western democratic president. And Belarus itself shouldn’t be written off. Remember, Belarus had a ‘quiet’ but game-changing national democratic revolution a few years ago which we should not forget. That peaceful revolt has been suppressed by crude force and there are hundreds of political prisoners in the country. Yes, Lukashenko is a vassal of Moscow and he allows Russian troops to be based in Belarus, but as soon as Moscow’s power is curbed and Russia defeated it is highly improbable that the majority of Belarusians will prefer to remain a colony of their Eurasian neighbour.

     

    China and India, together with many other Asian, South American and African countries, have continued to sit on their fence. Their declared neutrality, or ambivalence, only plays into the hands of Moscow. This is also a moment of truth for them and for all of us.

     

    So, in this unfolding scenario, Ukraine’s struggle and eventual victory with the help of its allies, will have had profound consequences not only for its region, but for Europe as a whole and far beyond. Ukraine’s victory and that of the free world over despotic Russia, and by implication its tacit or explicit supporters, will create the conditions for the establishment of an enhanced international security architecture and for the establishment of Europe’s real borders at the frontiers of Ukraine and Belarus with Eurasian Russia.

     

    It will also force the self-styled ‘non-aligned countries’ implicitly backing Moscow to come clean and show if they are with the forces for freedom or autocracy or cynical self-interest.

     

    And Ukraine’s other task

    In the revamped new Europe, Ukraine will have not only to rebuild and restore the country, but to renew itself. National unity and the wellbeing of a large, regionally diverse, country consolidated in a modern political nation enjoying proper security and economic growth will be the priority. Old ways will have to be discarded and corruption curbed. Conditionality from Western partners offering financial, technical and military assistance will help in this regard to ensure the governance, openness and accountability needed.

     

    In the Herculean task of self-renewal of the country and the region, Ukraine is confident it will continue to enjoy the mutual benefits of the special new ‘strategic’ partnership that has come into being with Britain. The latter has not only honoured its strategic partnership with Ukraine with financial and military assistance but, in true Orwellian tradition, helped the country face up to the pressure of Russia’s misinformation warfare.

     

    In his historic recent speech before Britain’s political elite in Westminster Hall, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, invoking the image of Winston Churchill, thanked Britain, its leadership and population, for helping Ukraine withstand its darkest hours and move into its finest ones.

     

    Who would have thought that Ukraine and Britain, on different sides of Europe and traditional historical narratives, would one day draw so close. But together, they close the circle, and make of Europe a genuine cohesive entity based on shared mutual values and not simply the proclaimed semblance of things.

     

    Reproduced with the kind permission of the FCDO Association and the Chief Editor of The Kyiv Post.

     

    Image by Office of the President of Ukraine.

     

    Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

     

    Topics
    Footnotes
      Related Articles

      Russia’s Presidency of the UN Security Council – how States and Civil Society should respond

      Article by Florian Irminger

      March 30, 2023

      Russia’s Presidency of the UN Security Council – how States and Civil Society should respond

      An arsonist is (once again) presiding over the international firefighting institution. However, there are steps states and civil society can take to push back during Russia’s Presidency of the UN Security Council in April.

       

      On 24 February 2022, Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya from Ukraine called upon his peers at the table of the United Nations Security Council to do the right thing: “Call [President] Putin, call [Foreign Minister] Lavrov to stop aggression![1]  It would have been the right thing to do for any President of the Security Council on that day. But the Security Council was not presided over by anybody; Russia’s Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya was the chair in February 2022.

       

      Ambassador Nebenzya will once again take over the rotating presidency of the Security Council in April 2023, the very institution tasked to safeguard “the maintenance of international peace and security.[2]

       

      This presidency must be used as an opportunity to shame Russia and raise key thematic concerns highlighting Russia’s responsibility for war crimes in Ukraine and against the Ukrainian people. There are four areas of work, which can – and should – be addressed by States and civil society at the Security Council this April:

       

      • Raise publicly the issue of protection of children in armed conflicts: Security Council resolution 2225 establishes abduction of children as a trigger to list parties to armed conflict in the annual report of the Secretary General on the issue.[3] As the International Criminal Court Pre-Trial Chamber issued warrants of arrest for the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights, the Security Council has the opportunity to discuss the situation of children in armed conflict again, with reports from the ground in Ukraine and from the Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry, which itself reported on the abduction of Ukrainian children by Russian forces.[4] States should request for the Council to hold such a briefing; should the presidency refuse or not include it in the programme of work, member states should hold a public event — for example under the Arria-Formula— of their own with high-level speakers.[5] The Secretary General is to publish his annual report on the issue in June, and not addressing the issue during Russia’s presidency would be a failure.

       

      • Shed the light on the repression against freedom of expression in Russia: We cannot ignore that Putin’s war against Ukraine comes amidst two decades of repression and criminalisation of dissent. Just days ago, Moscow police raided the homes of nine staff and board members of Memorial, one of Russia’s leading human rights organisations and a co-recipient of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize. Russia’s presidency provides an opportunity to thematise the interrelation between peace and stability, human rights, and the rule of law.[6] Seventy one states had signed up to such an intention through the Appeal of 13 June.[7] Human rights should be better integrated into the work of the Council, but the opportunity to seize in April is rather to discuss how repression of dissent, opposition, independent media and civil society is an early warning sign of potential regional instability.[8] Russia is in this way a case study, upon which Council members should shine a spotlight.

       

      • Take action to address the environmental disaster of the war: The Security Council should take action firstly in welcoming the work of the UN International Law Commission, which adopted its Draft principles on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts.[9] Based on that action, it should recognise the importance of the activities undertaken by the UN Environment Programme in Ukraine in relation to the war and mandate an assessment of the impact of the war in Ukraine on the environment to be presented to the Council swiftly.

       

      • States should hold the presidency to the rules of procedure of the Council: Security Council member states must prepare their diplomats to lead “floor fights” against the presidency on the interpretation and respect of the rules of procedures of the Council and the United Nations Charter itself. Holding Russia accountable to UN rules of procedures are “necessary fights” in order to highlight the responsibility of a permanent member of the Security Council towards the institution and, in the words of the Preamble of the UN Charter, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” In order to avoid the scenes of 24 February 2022, states must compel Ambassador Nebenzya, in order to “for the proper fulfilment of the responsibilities of the presidency” to step aside during the consideration of issues directly connected to the Russian Federation, as foreseen by rule 20 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure.[10] However, this will not suffice; should there be a renewed attempt in April to vote on a Security Council resolution — in fact Ukraine and its allies would be well inspired to once again come to the table of the Security Council — member states should require explanation from the presidency and interpretation by the Secretariat of the duty foreseen in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the UN Charter that “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”[11]

       

      When an arsonist is playing the firefighter, you cannot continue business as usual. Making use of the mechanisms provided by the institutions is a way to ensure that Russia does not have a comfortable month at the presidency of the United Nations Security Council. The above outlined actions would in no way hamper the Council’s ability to function in April, utilising the spirit of “compartmentalistion” in order to avoid the Council being blocked.[12] Yet taking these steps would ensure that Russia’s leadership of the Council is never again just a normal presidency.

       

       

      Florian Irminger, a member of FPC’s Advisory Council, is a dedicated strategist for human rights and climate justice advocacy. Over the past two decades, he has served as a local elected official, as secretary general of a national political party, and in leadership positions of local and international NGOs. Florian’s experience extends from Europe to the United Nations, Central Asia to Central Africa, Baku to Minsk through Kyiv. He led Human Rights House Foundation’s advocacy, in which function he was instrumental in securing the attention of the Security Council to the situation in Crimea, including through organising the first events and Arria Formula briefings at the United Nations.

       

       

      Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

       

      [1]  Alex Leff, The impassioned plea from Ukraine’s U.N. ambassador to Russia to stop the war, npr news, 24 February 2022,
      https://www.npr.org/2022/02/24/1082806285/ukraine-ambassador-russia-security-council

       

      [2] Security Council Presidency, United Nations Security Council, December 2022, https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/presidency

       

      [3] Security Council Resolution 2225, Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, 21 September 2017, https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/document/security-council-resolution-2225/

       

      [4] Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, International Criminal Court, 17 March 2023, https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and; Laura Gozzi, Deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia is war crime – UN, BBC News, 16 March 2023, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64985009

       

      [5] Arria-Formula Meetings, UN Security Council Working Methods, Security Council Report, 16 December 2020, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/arria-formula-meetings.php

       

      [6] Rachel Denber, Russia Opens New Case against Memorial, Human Rights Watch, 21 March 2023, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/21/russia-opens-new-case-against-memorial

       

      [7] Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland launches the appeal of June 13th to put Human Rights at the Heart of Conflict Prevention: “Security and human rights make a perfect match”, The Federal Council, Switzerland Government, 13 June 2016, https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-62152.html

       

      [8] Joanna Weschler, Human rights and the Security Council: practical steps to build effectiveness, Universal Rights Group Geneva, 12 December 2022, https://www.universal-rights.org/blog/human-rights-and-the-security-council-practical-steps-to-build-effectiveness/

       

      [9] Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, International Law Commission, 22 September 2022, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/8_7.shtml

       

      [10] Provisional Rules of Procedure, Chapter IV: Presidency, United Nations Security Council, https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/rop/chapter-4

       

      [11] Composition, Article 13, United Nations Charter, Chapter V: The Security Council, United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-5

       

      [12] Sebastian von Einsiedel et al, The UN Security Council in an Age of Great Power Rivalry, United Nations University Working Paper Series Number 04, February 2015, https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6112/UNSCAgeofPowerRivalry.pdf

       

      Footnotes
        Related Articles

        Resisting the Abuse of Political Power

        Article by David Harley

        March 28, 2023

        Resisting the Abuse of Political Power

        Where We Are Now

        The struggle between the people and their rulers, between democracy and tyranny, is as old as human civilisation. Throughout history these intrinsic patterns of human behaviour come and go, swirling around, in different guises and with varying consequences over the centuries, but never completely disappear.

         

        In addressing this eternal question, equally strong doses of humility and hard-nosed realism are called for. It is never wise to discount humankind’s ability to make a bad situation worse. Nor should we believe the person who says airily that ‘Surely things can’t get any worse’- because they will. All the signs are there, hiding in plain sight. Only by understanding the full extent of the threats facing us can we hope to head them off. There is no guarantee of success.

         

        We are at an epochal turning point, and living not only in dark times but also in a time of great change. ‘When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions’, as the poet said. Almost every day, we rub our eyes in disbelief at the latest looming disasters – war, famine, pestilence, climate change, recession, social unrest, autocracy – that are heading our way or have already impacted our world, chipping away at the old familiar certainties, our comfort zones rudely shaken. Borders and frontiers, both geographical and in the mind, are no longer fixed or secure. We’re not sure which way to turn, so we cling to what we think we know.

         

        Lurking behind all these changes is the abuse of political power, for autocracy and populism thrive on chaos and the gradual erosion of constitutional checks and balances, and basic freedoms. Great swathes of the population in Europe and the United States are suffering from abject poverty and diminished life chances, their inhabitants blaming globalisation and the political class, not without justification. We find the same sense of loss of identity and resentment among the closed mines and disused steelworks in North East England, Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. For hundreds of millions of people in the rest of the world, lacking food, water and basic healthcare, the present and the future are even bleaker. As often as not, one disaster leads to another: everything is linked.

         

        Many people, despite their better selves, instinctively deal with these threats to the status quo ante by hoping for the arrival of a strong and effective government or leader who can turn back the tide and make everything right again, as it used to be. Back to a nostalgic past that in reality never existed. But the problems and the challenges exist in the here and now. We are on a new arc of history. Even a cursory glance at historical precedent will tell us that the pattern of recent events is clear, and menacing. There may not be much time left to correct it.

         

        Those who will suffer most if current trends continue will, naturally, be those with the least means to defend themselves, who are often in the early stages of authoritarian rule the autocrats’ most enthusiastic supporters. It was ever so. Addressing the question of the abuse of power is not a theoretical exercise, but about how the curtailing of individual rights and basic freedoms by the state impairs people’s daily lives, and limits their choices and hence their prospects for a better life for themselves and their families. Unchecked, the state throws off the shackles of accountability, while the central authority becomes ever stronger at the expense of the rights of the individual citizen, typically crushing the human spirit in the name of a spurious ideology. Resisting the abuse of political power is also about preventing autocratic and authoritarian governments from persecuting minorities, often on specious racial or religious grounds, and from hollowing out the principal institutions of the state that they see as potential sources of opposition: parliament, the judiciary, the media.

         

        Europe is indisputably moving ever further to the right. Extremist, nationalist and populist parties that represent a threat to liberal democracy exist today, with several in government, in the majority of European countries. Most of these parties are also anti-immigration and anti-Muslim. In the United States (increasingly becoming a misnomer for a fundamentally divided country), the Republican Party supports former President Trump in his refusal to accept the result of the last presidential election, categorically rejects any responsibility for the insurrection in Congress on January 6th 2021, and promotes an orchestrated campaign of vote-rigging and gerrymandering in Congressional districts (although in certain states such as New York the Democrats are hardly innocent on the latter issue) in order to skew future elections in their favour. Almost wherever we look in the West, centrifugal forces are on the increase and the Centre is no longer holding. Up to now the European Union has stuck together and managed to steady the ship, but the strains on unity and mutual solidarity have become increasingly visible.

         

        We thought we knew the rules for civilised survival and mostly abided by them, but we now realise that many of the old laws and principles of liberal democracy, which we subconsciously relied on and considered sacrosanct and permanent, are now in disrepair or no longer applied – ‘ripped up’ even – and it is hard to discern the way forward through the wreckage. As though a thief came into the house at night and stole a cache of objects of sentimental value, while we were sleeping. We never heard a thing, and then next morning we found it hard to take in the sense of violation and felt diminished and vulnerable.

         

        It is that combination of simultaneous change and threat that makes us fearful of the future, both as individuals in our private lives, and for the future of the society around us, even for the survival of the planet. We sense that we are entering a new period of history, but we don’t yet know what’s coming down the road.  Rarely has Gramsci’s much-quoted definition of a crisis – when the old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born – felt more apposite.

         

        Those of us born in the second half of the twentieth century didn’t know our luck. One reason why we find it hard to adapt to today’s multiple challenges is that most of the Western World – primarily Europe and the United States – was living, without fully realising it, in a cocoon-like era of relative peace and prosperity since the end of the Second World War. We were not well prepared or in training for dealing with these new challenges. When our attention was elsewhere, the beast sunk its claws deep into our values system, and it will take time and effort to prise them off. How can we jolt ourselves out of that intellectual complacency and inertia that has taken root in the West in recent years and infected much of our politics?

         

        The Response

        We have three options for dealing with creeping autocracy and authoritarianism, and the abuse of political power. The one we choose could shape our future, both as individuals and as society.

         

        The first is to go with the flow of history and adapt to the new reality, without worrying too much about ideology, values and principles. What good have they done us anyway in recent times? Few things can be more important than putting food on the table for our loved ones. Most politicians are all the same, and those that are different aren’t always that bad (particularly if they are smart enough to appear outwardly friendly and polite, make attractive promises to better our lot, and generally wear ‘slippers rather than jackboots’). What’s the point of sticking one’s head above the parapet and thereby asking for trouble? This too will pass, so they say. Many people – probably the majority – ask for nothing more than a quiet life. You can hardly blame them; it almost feels like a natural human reaction. Yet that way darkness lies, in troubled times.

         

        The second option is to look at the lessons from history and philosophy. History is like a volcano that was erroneously considered extinct but then suddenly erupts. What is happening in Europe today might feel unfamiliar to us, but in a way it is nothing new. The struggle between democracy and tyranny goes back a long way, at least as far as Ancient Greece. The same is true for the endless back and forth between borders and frontiers. We had naively thought that, largely thanks to the EU and NATO, Europe’s frontiers were finally fixed for all time. We didn’t heed the several warnings from Vladimir Putin that he didn’t share this view. In 1805 after the battle of Austerlitz, at his house in Putney, William Pitt said to his niece ‘Roll up the map of Europe; it will not be wanted these ten years.’ We’re not quite there yet, but the risk exists.

         

        Further back still, the Vedic and Hindu scriptures talk about the three essential phases of life on earth – creation, maintenance, and destruction, leading to re-creation and the next phase in the never-ending cycle. It is hard to escape the thought, however unpalatable, that humankind may possess an inherent self-destructive impulse. How can we counter this tendency? The short answer is with courage, lucidity, and sacrifice, including being ready where necessary to give one’s life for the cause, no less. Ukraine has shown us the way. Tragically, however, history also shows us that courage and the ultimate sacrifice may not always be enough.

         

        We should also include, in our armoury of thoughts and ideas to beat back the abusers, the recognition that, contrary to the widespread belief in the West and especially in the US, our quality of life as currently measured may not remain indefinitely on an upward curve. Writing in the Financial Times, Edward Luce pointed out that murder rates, deaths from war and child mortality went down significantly during the Roman Empire, before it was succeeded by centuries of medieval darkness and the trends were comprehensively reversed. And unlike us, during the Romans’ imperial decline, they didn’t also have to deal with global warming.

         

        The third option for preventing the abuse of political power is the most difficult and the most necessary: to synthesise the general lessons of the past with the particular and most pressing demands of the present, and seek to change the course of events accordingly. An additional dimension to the challenge is that the Western world today is a political tinderbox: in their attempts to prevent the abuse of power, our democratically elected representatives – where they still exist – must be careful not to stoke further the flames of totalitarianism. We must navigate through the many obstacles with the utmost care.

         

        Fortunately, there is no lack of self-help books published in recent years, particularly in the US, which provide useful guidance on some of the errors unwittingly committed by our forebears as they faced the rise of fascism, the traps not to fall into, the lines not to cross.

         

        Timothy Snyder, Professor of history at Yale University, reminds us of Hannah Arendt’s warnings about the banality of evil and the normalisation of human wickedness. In his short volume ‘On Tyranny: Lessons from the 20th Century’, he warns against ‘anticipatory obedience’ and enjoins us ‘to defend institutions, and take responsibility for the face of the world’ (by which he means that we should be sceptical about propaganda), and makes the disturbing but verifiable point that ‘most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given’. On the abuse of political power in the US, Snyder states that ‘we have very good reason to be concerned.The British historian Richard J. Evans, author of ‘The History of the Third Reich,’ states that ‘Democracy is a fragile creation. Underpinned by the rule of law and the popular will, democracy is the only way we can prevent the arbitrary exercise of tyranny.’ In ‘How Democracies Die’, the American political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt lament ‘the end of mutual toleration’ – a euphemism for describing the lack of any common ground and profound antagonism across the aisle in today’s America (except when it comes to voting vast sums for the defence industry).

         

        Last year the political historian Peter Hennessy, reputed and respected for his objectivity and moderation, made a similar point when he fired off a remarkable salvo against the British government then in power, qualifying its record in office as ‘a bonfire of the decencies’ and the abandonment of the ‘good chap theory’ of government (only in England…) which has shown up the fragility of the British constitution. On the bright side, relatively speaking, certain checks and balances on executive power remain in place in the UK, and the members of political parties can still choose their own leaders (although the growing role of financial backers in influencing government policy, as in the US, has raised concerns). But the erosion of basic freedoms – the right of peaceful protest and not to be arrested without charge, to claim asylum, freedom of the press in the face of flagrant attempts at muzzling and intimidation by oligarchs and their legal representatives – has undoubtedly begun. Recent government action, such as limiting the competences of the Electoral Commission and watering down the ministerial code (and even then not applying it), will further extend the powers of the state.  As chunks of masonry regularly crash down from the rotting timbered roof, the venerable British Parliament finds itself increasingly bypassed and in urgent need of repair.

         

        Fiona Hill, Russia expert and former Deputy National Security Adviser to President Trump, has spoken about ‘treading back through old historical patterns we said we would never permit to happen again’, as illustrated by the way the West allowed Putin to interfere in elections in the US, the UK and elsewhere. Ukraine has become the front line in a struggle not just between democracies and autocracies, but in the struggle to defend a rules-based international system against the ruthless deployment of superior military and economic force.

         

        We should listen carefully to these lessons from the past and warnings from distinguished authors, political scientists and policy practitioners, and study their eminently sensible and well argued guidebooks on how to prevent and survive tyranny. But to what extent are they still relevant? Has the Third World War, as some have claimed, already begun? Is it already too late to reverse the march of history?

         

        Future Prospects

        We are about to embark on a long and arduous journey, where the destination and the time it will take to get there are unclear. Against the background of ‘a drastically altered international constellation and in the shadow of transatlantic uncertainties’ (Jürgen Habermas), a new kind of politics is taking over. In recent years, we have seen both the re-emergence of ‘classic’ patterns that lead to the abuse of political power – the curtailment or abolition of civil liberties and the suppression of independent institutions – and new phenomena such as the proliferation of social media and a different form of politics driven by personalities and identity rather than the substance of policy and concern for the common good. This combination of old and new threats is divisive and dangerous. Populist and nationalist parties increasingly use wedge issues, dog-whistles and anti-wokeism to divide public opinion and distract from traditional liberal values. All other policies and projects outside these parties’ core messages are cynically downplayed or eliminated by a strategy known in the trade as  ‘getting the barnacles off the boat’.

         

        We must exhaust every available form of action, both collective and individual, to resist these trends and defend our basic rights and freedoms. Randomly selected citizens’ action groups, such as the Irish example of citizens’ assemblies and similar bodies in France, Britain and Denmark, have helped to produce consensual solutions to specific societal problems. Individually, we must quite simply stand up for our views with our families, friends and colleagues at work. Individual dissent, resisting binary choices, and the ability to listen are further key attributes in slowing the perilous slide towards autocracy.

         

        However, we should not delude ourselves. We may vigorously argue our case, support democratic parties, and make common cause with like-minded fellow citizens to take on the tyrants and the autocrats. But there are wider forces at work here, rooted partly in history and partly in contemporary phenomena, over which our control as human beings is necessarily limited. We will need infinite resolve and patience.

         

        In conclusion, before we set out on our uncertain journey, let us recall the words of two citizens of America, the land that until recently, and despite some murky origins, symbolised optimism and endless possibilities for human betterment. In his speech at the National Cathedral in Washington on March 31st 1968, Martin Luther King reminded us that ‘we shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.’

         

        The writer John Steinbeck wrote on the indelible duality of human nature and the cyclical character of human history: ‘All the goodness and the heroisms will rise up again, then be cut down again and rise up. It isn’t that the evil thing wins – it never will – but that it doesn’t die.’ There is no magic formula. Whether or not we succeed in resisting the abuse of political power is not wholly in our control. But resist we must, and the better angels of our nature will eventually prevail.

         

        Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

        Footnotes
          Related Articles

          The Inter-Parliamentary Union, Civil Society and the UK

          Article by Drewery Dyke

          March 15, 2023

          The Inter-Parliamentary Union, Civil Society and the UK

          The Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly Bahrain: what the revocation of observers’ visas really signifies

          On 8 March, the government of Bahrain revoked the visas of two individuals from Human Rights Watch (HRW). They were set to attend an international meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which the government of Bahrain (GoB) has been hosting, 11-15 March. 

           

          The IPU is the global association of national parliaments.  Compared to the relative importance of the gathering itself and the matters that parliamentarians from across the globe are addressing, the exclusion of the two persons from HRW, an organisation with observer status to the IPU, may appear to matter very little. 

           

          Not so.  A whole morality and standards in international conduct is at stake. This matters to the United Kingdom (UK) parliament, government and civil society, each of whom should take action in their own way.

           

          Civil society in the global order

          In the global order envisioned by the United Nations (UN), states enjoy sovereignty limited only by international legal agreement, including in areas such as trade and human rights. The UN accords secondary status to intergovernmental organisations  and specialised agencies whose mandates relate to trade, regional governance or other forms of international cooperation or standard-setting. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is one such organisation.

           

          The IPU, in turn, accords permanent observer status to UN agencies; regional intergovernmental organisations, parliamentary assemblies or associations, International political party federations and International non-governmental organisations (INGOs).[1]

           

          The IPU assembly in Bahrain

          Today marks the final day of the IPU’s  146th Assembly  which has been taking place in Manama, Bahrain, 11 – 15 March 2023. The IPU comprises 178 member parliaments, a subset of whom are present in Bahrain. While there, they have been addressing, amongst other issues, promoting peaceful coexistence and inclusive societies and fighting intolerance. Given that its slogan is, “For Democracy. For Everyone” this agenda seems logical. 

           

          Yet, its Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians has raised with governments 727 cases of violations of parliamentarians’ human rights, of which two are from Bahrain. The GoB arbitrarily stripped the citizenship of one, Jawad Fairooz, who is now a UK national. By virtue of these cases, as well as the rejection of HRW’s access to the assembly, the GoB not only violates the statutes of the organisation but appears to  show that it holds in contempt the international order of which it is part.

           

          A matter for the UK?

          Answering a question about Mexico for the UK government, on 7 March, MP David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield) stated that: 

           

          “Democracy and freedom are at the heart of the UK’s values and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) global policy. They contribute to long-term prosperity and security; and democratic societies are the strongest supporters of an open and resilient international order. […] Support for democratic principles in Mexico is a continuing priority for our Embassy, which regularly engages with the Mexican Government to underline the importance of strong institutions and free and fair elections.”

           

          But the work of the IPU is not a governmental one: asked for comment on 15 March, a spokesperson for the FCDO said that insofar as no government minister attended, they had no view about Bahrain’s revocation of the visas to the HRW staffer. 

           

          While understandable, acts that erode democracy and freedom; and a resilient international order, in a context – Bahrain – where elections are neither free nor fair, must be a concern for the FCDO, if they aspire to apply policy equally and transparently. After all, the December 2022 FCDO’s 2021 report on Human Rights and Democracy states that Bahrain is a “priority country” [2]. Is it, really?

           

          The British Group [of the] Inter-Parliamentary Unionmotto: Advancing the parliamentary dimension of Britain’s foreign relations – is believed to have sent a delegation led by MP, Karen Bradley (Conservative), but comprising Labour and Liberal Democrat delegates from both the Commons and House of Lords, as well as administrative staff. While contacted for comment, at the time of writing, the BGIPU had not responded to the question whether they expressed a view over the revocation of the HRW staff members’ visas.

           

          The real price will be paid in Bahrain, by Bahrainis

          While the conduct of the GoB erodes the international order and adherence to international human rights standards, the revocation of the HRW staffers’ visas is the thin edge of the wedge. Research by Salam for Democracy and Human Rights has set out how the GoB has persecuted 15 former parliamentarians. The authorities arbitrarily detained 11 of them; unfairly charged a further 11; sentenced 10 following unfair trial; tortured 6 of them, deprived 4 of their citizenship while 6 now reside outside the country.

           

          A joint open letter to parliamentarians issued by 22 human rights groups working on Bahrain, on the occasion of the IPU assembly in Bahrain, reminded MPs that in 2016 and 2017, Bahrain’s judiciary dissolved two of the country’s main political opposition parties, Al-Wefaq and Wa’ad and that political isolation laws introduced in 2018 barred former members of these parties from running for parliament or sitting on boards of governors of civil society organisations [3]. The letter also drew attention to the fact that in 2017, the authorities forcibly closed Bahrain’s last independent newspaper, Al-Wasat, and that the GoB has effectively banned all independent media; as well as the November 2022  parliamentary elections were ostensibly the most restricted since parliamentary elections were reintroduced in 2002. 

           

          The GoB arbitrarily strips citizenship, continues to use the death penalty; detain prisoners of conscience and appears to turn a blind eye to the use of torture. A range of activists have faced brutal treatment, including torture and denial of medical care. Several of them, including Hassan Mushaima, Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, Sheikh Mohammed Habib Al-Muqdad, Abdulwahab Husain, Naji Fateel, and Sheikh Ali Salman, have been sentenced to life in prison. A Danish-Bahraini dual citizen, Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, has been denied surgery that he requires to treat his jaw, broken by security forces when he was arrested for taking part in the 2011 pro-democracy protests.

           

          For these reasons, civil society – a pillar of the global order – is perhaps right to be dismayed at the muted response by the IPU in relation to the revocation of the HRW staffers’ visas and by what appears to be silence by the BGIPU; as well as be  disappointed at UK’s FCDO’s lack of engagement – when Bahrain is a stated human rights “priority country”.  The IPU assembly ends today.

           

          Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

           

          [1]  The INGOs are, in full: Amnesty International Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Human Rights Watch, International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), Penal Reform International, World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA)

          [2] Chapter 5 of the FCDO’s 2021 Human Rights & Democracy report lists the priority countries as: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Central African Republic, China, Columbia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran and Iraq.

          [3] The joint open letter also states that these laws also target former prisoners, including those detained due to their political work. Those impacted by the political isolation laws also face routine delays and denials in their ability to access “Good Conduct Certificates,” a document required for Bahraini citizens and residents to apply for a job or university admission or even join a sports or social club.

          Footnotes
            Related Articles

            International Women’s Day in Iran 2023

            Article by Drewery Dyke and Tahirih Danesh

            March 8, 2023

            International Women’s Day in Iran 2023

            What can we do in response to the toxic gassing of thousands of female students and those risking their lives to advance the values behind the expression “Woman, Life, Freedom”?

             

            As we mark International Women’s Day 2023, more than 1,000, overwhelmingly female students in over 90 schools in 20 provinces in Iran have been injured and hospitalised on account of targeted gas attacks in mainly schools for girls.[1] This is the latest in a series of converted attacks that started on 30 November 2022 and continues until today.[2]

             

            On 6 March the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, spoke out against the attacks and its criminality. Other prominent figures have likewise spoken out; and some are taking action to ensure that all students – mainly females – can attend school without fear of being harmed.[3] At the time of writing, reports stated that a Deputy Interior Minister said that arrests had taken place and that the accused were Gasht-e Ershad, or Morality Police officials (see below).

             

            In contrast to the authorities’ apparent inability or unwillingness to take action to protect mainly female students, the Centre for Supporters of Human Rights (CSHR) highlighted officials’ haste to break up gatherings of families seeking action and answers; and their prompt investigation into newspapers seeking to examine the attacks.[5] One 4 March report, for example, while unconfirmed by other sources, stated that security officials detained a 19 year old student, Sarina Mahmoud Salehi, in Karaj, after she had spoken out about the gas attacks.[6] Officials reportedly threatened her with having to confess a role in the attacks. The recent toxic attacks will fuel a fury that will advance for months to come in what appears to be a female-shaped revolution.

             

            There is recognition that security forces the world over need time to assess and investigate criminal activity; that political leaders may appear slow to respond to damaging and harmful events. But the conduct exhibited in this instance is not one in which the authorities are out of step with society and its concerns; it is one in which apparently misogynistic authorities step on swathes of society’s concerns, and members of society themselves, to protect an illusive status quo.

             

            The conduct, too, resembles patterns once again unfolding in neighbouring Afghanistan, where Taliban rule is likewise rolling back women’s rights and the place of women in society.

             

            Is this the state response to Woman, Life, Freedom?

            The authorities never bought the narrative that the September 2022 death in custody of Jina (Mahsa) Amini marked a turning point in honouring human dignity and rights accorded to all Iranians, beginning with the country’s women, who were the first to arise against the Islamic Republic’s (IRI) discriminatory policies on this very day in 1979. 

             

            They do not, however, dispute the fact that the Morality Police (Gasht-e Ershad) detained Jina Amini on 13 September 2022 for the alleged improper use of the hijab, or that she died in government custody on 16 September. They differ in that the authorities claim she died of natural causes linked to an underlying health condition; her family, citing her good health, denounce the authorities’ claim. Leaked medical documents indicate that ill-treatment caused her death.

             

            On the other hand, officials recognise that her death resulted in nationwide, mainly urban demonstrations into 2023.[7]  The authorities have killed scores of people, including children; targeted women demonstrators; detained close to 15 thousand people and executed at least four.[8] Since September, reports indicated that the authorities were sending secondary school students to ‘psychological centres’ and would only allow them to return to school once ‘reformed’.[9] The Persian call: Zan, Zendegi, Azadi, or Woman, Life, Freedom is at the heart of the demonstrations that have pulsated through every corner of Iran and more than 150 cities around the globe. 

             

            If the Interior Ministry official is right, the question before us is: are the very organisations whose members killed Jina Amini also those involved in the intentional harming of girl students? If so, it is a new low for the Islamic Republic, amongst a damning catalogue of decades of human rights violations.

             

            What can the UK authorities, parliamentarians, NGOs do?

            People outside of Iran cannot directly do much: international law and practice forbids state acts that could amount to aggression against another state. But we can and must echo and amplify calls for justice on the one hand, and stand with those shaping this historic moment on the other hand.

             

            Days ago an Iranian diaspora media outlet, Iran International, had to temporarily relocate to the USA to escape threats of violence expressed by Islamic Republic officials. The IRI has, for years, harassed and threatened BBC journalists and terrorised their families in Iran. Such state-sponsored threats on UK soil should at least make us sit up straight, listen and appreciate what it must be like to a single woman standing up against such repression.

             

            In 2018, we wrote that:

            Iranian women impose themselves today and every day on state structures in Iran that keep them down. They demand their #MeToo rights and – leaving aside their willingness – paying a price to assert their rights. Iranian women are not victims, they don’t need saving by foreign powers; we are seeing a new, home-grown generation that is amongst the most highly educated in the region; plugged-in and nearly fully charged. This is the promise of the Iran; and indeed the promise for us all, globally.

             

            As we have seen, women in Iran and women human rights defenders have continued to call for respect and equality – for women, life, freedom.

             

            On International Women’s Day 2023, let’s use every platform we have access to and raise a call for life and freedom in a constructive and resilient manner. Parliamentarians and NGOs can do exactly this; the FCDO’s Human Rights team can draw attention to women human rights defenders, Nasrin Sotoudeh and Narges Mohammadi, both of whom have faced years of imprisonment, marked by occasional, temporary releases. Their ‘crime’? Advancing human rights standards and calling for accountability. Echo their voices.

             

            UK officials and Parliamentarians; public figures and – for example – legal professionals, can amplify the calls facilitated by the Center for Human Rights in Iran, in which 20 leading lawyers (including Nasrin Sotoudeh) set out asks to the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to investigate the attacks.[10] They can also engage and promote the work of organisations like FEMENA or the Centre for Supporters of Human RightsWhy? Because, after all, we too cherish Women, Life and Freedom.

             

             

            Drewery Dyke is a FPC Senior Research Fellow, Chairperson for the Rights Realization Centre and Senior Researcher specialising in analysis and international advocacy relating to human rights in The Gulf (GCC), Iran and Afghanistan. He currently works with the Iran-focused Centre for Supporters of Human Rights (CSHR).

             

            Tahirih Danesh is a FPC Senior Advisor, Lecturer in Human Rights Law and serves as Executive Director of the Persia Educational Foundation and is the Founding Editor of Iran Human Rights Review.

             

            Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

             

            [1] 20 Prominent Iranian Lawyers Call on UN to Investigate School Girl Poisonings, Center for Human Rights in Iran, 6 March 2023. https://iranhumanrights.org/2023/03/20-prominent-iranian-lawyers-call-on-un-agencies-to-urgently-investigate-school-girl-poisonings/

            [2]  Infographic Geographical distribution of student poisoning, Etemad Online, December 2022 https://www.etemadonline.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%81%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C%DA%A9-11/600053-%D9%86%D9%82%D8%B4%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%88%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4-%D8%A2%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%86 , accessed 7 March 2023

            [3]  Statement of new religious views on the chain of poisoning of girls, News Gooya, 7 March 2023 https://news.gooya.com/2023/03/post-73922.php

            [4] Chain poisoning; Deputy Interior Minister: “Some” were arrested and some were “guided”, BBC Persian, 7 March 2023, at: https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-64872566

            [5] Centre for Supporters of Human Rights, Twitter, Twitter  Post,  7 March 2023, https://twitter.com/CSHRIran/status/1632997338594652160?s=20

            [6] @persianated, Twitter, Twitter Post, March  2023, at https://twitter.com/persianated/status/1632020841092218885?s=20

            [7] Nationwide Coverage Of Protests In Iran On September 2,  Iran International, September 2022: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202209200749

            [8] Iranian actor Taraneh Alidoosti released from jail after family post bai, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, l 4 January 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/04/iranian-actor-taraneh-alidoosti-released-jail-family-post-bail#:~:text=The%20celebrated%20Iranian%20actor%20Taraneh,shown%20on%20Iranian%20social%20media

            [9] Iran International,  Twitter, Twitter post, 12 October 2022, https://twitter.com/IranIntl_En/status/1580149303674548230?s=20&t=l5DO6lEX-UN2fcyZ_nLCSw

            [10] Center for Human Rights in Iran: 20 Prominent Iranian Lawyers Call on UN to Investigate School Girl Poisonings, 6 March 2023, https://iranhumanrights.org/2023/03/20-prominent-iranian-lawyers-call-on-un-agencies-to-urgently-investigate-school-girl-poisonings/

            Footnotes
              Related Articles

              One year on: The Ukrainian media’s resilience to Russia’s full-scale invasion

              Article by Sergiy Tomilenko

              February 24, 2023

              One year on: The Ukrainian media’s resilience to Russia’s full-scale invasion

              The aggressive occupation policy was started by Russia back in 2014, with the occupation of Crimea and part of the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions. The bloody war in Donbas forged a significant circle of experienced war journalists in Ukraine who went to report from the frontlines. At the same time, it is obvious that since the full-scale invasion in February 2022 every journalist in Ukraine, experienced or not, has become a war journalist.

               

              Journalists have had to realise the level of danger to which they can be exposed on the frontline. There has been a recognition of the line that they cannot cross even for the sake of writing a ‘cool’ article or preparing a ‘cool’ photo report. Unfortunately, this lesson has come at a high price. As of today, 50 Ukrainian journalists and media workers have been killed since the beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, eight of them were killed while performing their professional duties. Many more journalists were injured, forced to flee and/or been deprived of personal and editorial property. Some have passed through Russian torture chambers, whilst others currently remain in Russian captivity.

               

              The key, most important professional term for journalists in Ukraine today is the word ‘safety’. In the circumstances in which Russia can indiscriminately attack Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and, at any moment, launch missiles towards not only the frontlines, no resident of Ukraine feels safe. Therefore, every journalist should be ready to act according to pre-prepared security protocols.

               

              Today, we can confidently say that journalism in Ukraine is a profession of courageous people. Our organisation’s slogan, which was ingrained a few years before in the midst of panic due to the epidemic of the coronavirus disease, is “Journalists are Important!”. Today, this slogan has acquired a special meaning, because, for Ukrainians who are trying to save themselves from Russian aggression, objective information really saves lives, helps us to survive, and helps us unite to fight off our occupiers.

               

              Sergiy Tomilenko is the President of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine (NUJU)

              Footnotes
                Related Articles

                One year on: ‘Making do’ and the nature of unconventional humanitarian responses

                One year on: ‘Making do’ and the nature of unconventional humanitarian responses

                One year since Russia prosecuted the invasion of Ukraine, cities, towns, and villages are systematically erased from the map, leaving millions searching for shelter and safety. In response, we have seen pockets of resilience and islands of good practice stemming from unlikely humanitarian actors (by conventional standards), who, in absence of substantial capabilities or funding, still acted as first responders, ‘making do’ on a daily basis to alleviate the plight of others. 

                 

                On the ground, troves of Ukrainian grassroots charities repurposed whatever resources they had to respond to widespread displacement, often, facing the monumental task of supporting refugee centres, hospitals, military units, schools, orphanages, local administrations, and many others (all at once). Amid constant targeting barges and nationwide power cuts, volunteers strive to deliver supplies beyond the frontlines, at great personal cost and sacrifice. With manpower and operations under such duress, these distributed solidarity networks coordinate evacuations, locate the missing, and inventory the bodies left behind, to be returned with dignity to their families.

                 

                From abroad, I witnessed how other decentralised, humanitarian ecosystems came together. In the UK, dozens of diaspora community organisations pooled resources to send aid to Ukraine before established humanitarian actors developed a presence on the ground. Local parishes and supportive local authorities offered space for storing, sorting, and packing material donations. These small charities and informal diaspora networks then launched crowdfunding appeals to cover the costs of transportation, organised logistics, crowdsourced aid, and opened humanitarian corridors when the full-scale invasion had just erupted. Some clusters survive one year later, others are just fledgling, but the majority had a limited lifespan, despite acting as first responders. Perhaps, during this brief time of reflection, it is worth shifting the conversation to the limitations that curb unconventional but effective humanitarian responses.

                Footnotes
                  Related Articles

                  One year on: Russia, Ukraine and the UK’s commitment to crackdown on kleptocracy and SLAPPs

                  Article by Susan Coughtrie

                  One year on: Russia, Ukraine and the UK’s commitment to crackdown on kleptocracy and SLAPPs

                  The Russian invasion into Ukraine provoked a range of responses from the UK Government, including a sudden vigour to clamp down on Russian influence and kleptocracy. These were far from new issues of concern. In its ‘Russia Report’, published in July 2020, the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee damningly concluded that “Successive Governments have welcomed the oligarchs and their money with open arms, providing them with a means of recycling illicit finance through the London ‘laundromat’.” 

                   

                  The following year, journalist Catherine Belton and her publisher HarperCollins faced a ‘legal pile on’ in relation to her book Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West. An eye opening account of how Russian kleptocracy had developed and spread, the legal cases against the book ended up raising the profile of another phenomenon – SLAPPs. ‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’ are abusive legal actions taken, or threatened, to harass and intimidate those speaking out in the public interest. 

                   

                  By the invasion last February, these cases had been settled, but not before HarperCollins had spent £1.5 million defending them. By March 2022, all the claimants – four Russian oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, and a state owned Russian oil company – were sanctioned. Stories about them suddenly flooded into the public domain, with Belton later noting that journalists have been “censoring themselves, particularly about the activities of Russian oligarchs, for a very long time.”

                   

                  In July, the findings of a Ministry of Justice consultation found that SLAPPs “go beyond the parameters of ordinary litigation and pose a threat to freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.” The Government committed to legislative reform, the fruits of which we have yet to see. This delay was put sharply in the spotlight this January, after it was revealed that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Russian oligarch currently waging war in Ukraine as the head of the Wagner Group, had been granted licences by the UK Treasury to evade pre-existing sanctions and sue Eliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat, in London last year. 

                   

                  While the focus has been on Russia, it is the UK financial and legal systems that have been misused. It’s the UK’s inaction over years that has allowed kleptocracy to flourish, emboldening authoritarian regimes that rely on corruption to entrench their power, abuse their own citizens and now those of other nations. SLAPPs delay or suppress the release of information about wrongdoing, both foreign and domestic, preventing redress. The UK needs to take decisive action to break this cycle once and for all. 

                   

                  Susan Coughtrie, co-chairs the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, an informal working group established in January 2021, which comprises a number of civil society organisations, lawyers, academics and researchers. In November 2022, the Coalition published a model UK Anti-SLAPP Law, developed with support of expert media lawyers, which has been widely endorsed by media and civil society.

                  Footnotes
                    Related Articles

                    One year on: Disinformation and the dismantling of Russian independent media

                    Article by Lana Estemirova

                    One year on: Disinformation and the dismantling of Russian independent media

                    ​​As we approach the grim one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we cannot underestimate its crushing impact on independent journalism and human rights inside Russia. 

                     

                    Without a doubt, the systematic demolition of civil society in Russia helped to lay the ground for the invasion, as did the notorious Foreign Agents Law. Incessant Kremlin propaganda that dominates state channels, coupled with the shutdown of independent media, blocks citizens from easy access to truthful information. In a new draconian measure, the Russian parliament passed a law that imposes a 15-year sentence for spreading ‘fake’ information about the invasion. For example, a 20-year-old student, Olesya Krivtsova, who is currently under house arrest, is facing up to ten years in prison for posting anti-war messages on her social media. 

                     

                    Press freedom rapidly deteriorated even further after the invasion. Independent media organisations such as Novaya Gazeta, TV Rain and Echo of Moscow (among many others) were closed by the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor. Most outlets that were declared Foreign Agents have had to re-establish themselves outside Russia. Despite continuous threats and financial challenges, independent journalists carry on their investigative work. It is crucial for Russian independent media to survive and continue telling the truth about their country’s actions.

                    Footnotes
                      Related Articles

                       Join our mailing list 

                      Keep informed about events, articles & latest publications from Foreign Policy Centre

                      JOIN