|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NORTHEAST ASIA
Defending the wrong person
As embattled South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and his military honchos face trial over his short-lived attempt to implement martial law last year, they have found an unlikely ally: the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, which inexplicably came to their defense despite its mandate to remain independent.
In a joint statement Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and the Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) said the NHRCK’s move to recommend Yoon’s right to defend himself in trial undermined the commission’s independence and risked legitimizing his justification for declaring martial law.
FORUM-ASIA executive director Mary Aileen Diez-Bacalso noted that the NHRCK has yet to issue a statement condemning the actual declaration two months since.
“We urge the NHRCK leadership to take immediate steps to safeguard its independence and adhere to the Paris Principles, which set the standards for effective and credible national human rights institutions,” the organizations said in a joint statement.
FAST FACTS
- Yoon, with the backing of his military generals, declared martial law in South Korea on Dec. 3 supposedly to crush “anti-state forces” done by “North Korean communist forces.” Analysts, however, say it was a self-coup to suppress the majority opposition that has been blocking his agenda and which has been investigating his wife’s involvement in corruption allegations.
- The National Assembly quickly overturned the declaration within three hours, setting in motion criminal indictments against Yoon and his military officers, as well as Yoon’s impeachment. He is currently in detention to face trial for orchestrating an insurrection, and is facing a separate charge of rebellion.
- During a Feb. 10 meeting, six of the NHRCK commissioners including its chair, voted in favor of a resolution that affirms support for the impeached President’s right to a fair trial. The NHRCK is a Grade A national human rights institution under the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), which mandates NHRIs to act with “heightened vigilance and independence” during states of emergency by publicly documenting and addressing human rights violations.
- Four commissioners argued the resolution effectively defended the President’s undemocratic actions. Civil society groups have called on the NHRCK to immediately investigate allegations of rights abuses linked to the martial law declaration.
ACTIONS SOUGHT
Both FORUM-ASIA and ANNI demand that the NHRCK:
- Publicly condemn the December 2024 martial law declaration and recognize the associated human rights violations.
- Launch a formal investigation into allegations of abuse during the state of emergency.
- Strengthen its independence by ensuring that future decisions align with the Paris Principles.
SOUTHEAST ASIA
Repealing yet another draconian directive
A two-month-old decree in Vietnam is prompting fears of a significant escalation in government efforts to regulate online speech and tighten control over digital platforms.
A new policy paper by Project88 shows that Decree 147 – which took effect on Dec. 25, 2024 – imposes stringent new restrictions on social media, crack down on online journalism and blogging, and appears to “open the door for mass surveillance on social media.”
The human rights groups advocating for Vietnamese activists and free speech in Vietnam asked the government to repeal the decree and stop issuing similar policies; tech companies to refuse to comply with its provisions; and on the international community to continue pressuring Vietnam against such policies.
“The Vietnamese people have the right to voice their opinions and access information free from censorship, surveillance, and harassment. Restrictions on expression are not permissible if they are designed to entrench a particular ideology or political party,” the report said.
FAST FACTS
- Under Decree 147, social media platforms operating in Vietnam are required to verify user identities using a phone number or ID card, with such information made available to government authorities upon request. In addition, platforms must comply with content removal orders within 24 hours or risk punitive measures.
- Vietnamese authorities have justified Decree 147 as a necessary step to curb misinformation, maintain national security, and prevent foreign influence over public discourse.
- Legal experts and human rights organizations argue that the decree’s broad and vague definitions of “illegal” content create an environment where authorities can arbitrarily target activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens.
- The group’s report tags Decree 147 as yet another move in a broader strategy to limit political dissent and online activism, following previous measures such as the 2018 Cybersecurity Law (on which Decree 147 is built on) and other government decrees restricting digital freedoms.
- Internet freedoms remain “not free” in Vietnam, according to Freedom House’s 2024 Freedom on the Internet report.
ACTIONS SOUGHT
Project88 is calling for:
- The repeal of Decree 147 and a commitment to uphold free expression.
- Tech companies to resist compliance with provisions that violate fundamental rights.
- Greater diplomatic pressure from international bodies to hold Vietnam accountable for its increasing restrictions on digital freedoms.
- Public awareness campaigns to educate Vietnamese citizens on their digital rights and strategies for protecting online privacy.
SOUTH ASIA
Six months on, still in pursuit of accountability
Six months since Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was ousted from office, a new report by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) sought to underscore the severity of the human rights violations committed by her former administration during the July-August 2024 protests.
The report, published Feb. 12, uncovered a systematic campaign of state repression by executing hundreds of unarmed protesters, injuring thousands more, and detaining demonstrators, activists, and political opponents.
These incidents led the office to find “reasonable grounds” to believe that Bangladesh’s security forces, acting in coordination with political leadership and intelligence agencies, engaged in crimes against humanity of murder, torture, and other inhumane acts, and called for further criminal investigations into these charges under the Rome Statute.
“The brutal response was a calculated and well-coordinated strategy by the former Government to hold onto power in the face of mass opposition,” said U.N. Rights Chief Volker Turk. “Accountability and justice are essential for national healing and for the future of Bangladesh.”
FAST FACTS
- The report, done at the behest of Bangladesh’s interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, details how law enforcement and paramilitary forces operated in tandem with violent pro-government elements to silence dissent during the student-led protests that eventually saw Hasina’s ouster.
| Key state players | Abuses detailed |
|
Used live ammunition, including military rifles and shotguns loaded with metal pellets against protesters |
|
Deployed mass surveillance and intimidation tactics against opposition figures; the DB reportedly engaged in torture to extract confessions |
|
Colluded to implement strategically timed and targeted internet shutdowns to prevent protesters from organizing |
|
Pressured media outlets not to report fully and truthfully |
- The report also estimates that over 1,400 people were killed, mostly by military grade weapons, while more than 11,700 people were arrested, including children. However, between July 1 and Aug. 5, when Hasina was ousted, the OHCHR found there was “no genuine effort” for accountability for the serious violations.
- With the former government ousted, Bangladesh’s interim leadership faces mounting pressure to dismantle repressive structures and restore democratic freedoms. However, lingering impunity within the security and intelligence sectors poses challenges to meaningful reform.
ACTIONS SOUGHT
Apart from calling for an International Criminal Court investigation, the OHCHR has urged Bangladesh’s interim government to:
- Launch independent investigations into extrajudicial killings and torture.
- Prosecute security and political officials responsible for the abuses.
- Ensure justice for victims and families through reparations and legal reforms.
- Lift restrictions on civil liberties, including internet access and freedom of the press.
GLOBAL / REGIONAL
Moderating the moderator
Weeks after a Rohingya rights activist and survivor filed a whistleblower complaint as pushback against Meta’s rollback on content moderation, two human rights organizations echoed his calls to hold the largest social media group accountable for its human rights impacts across the world.
In a joint statement on Feb. 17, Amnesty International and the Rohingya Students’ Network called on governments, civil society, and tech industry leaders to take decisive action to ensure digital platforms do not become catalysts for further human rights crises.
If left unchecked, Meta’s content policy rollback risks enabling hate speech and inciting violence on a global scale, the groups said.
FAST FACTS
- The rollback, announced by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in early January, includes lifting bans on speech that denigrates racial and marginalized communities and significantly reducing automated content moderation. Zuckerberg announced the raft of new changes last month ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration as president, seemingly to curry favor with him, as have other Big Tech leaders.
- Both the Feb. 17 statement and the Jan. 25 SEC filing noted Meta’s long history of negligence in content moderation. In Myanmar, Meta’s algorithms amplified hate speech against the Rohingya, contributing to a genocidal military campaign in 2017.
- Similar patterns of online radicalization have been observed in Ethiopia’s Tigray conflict and India, where inflammatory content has led to deadly consequences.
- Experts warn that Meta’s decision to relax restrictions on harmful content could create an enabling environment for hate speech, misinformation, and incitement to violence in fragile democracies and conflict zones.
- Despite Meta’s past acknowledgments of its role in fueling violence, the company has resisted calls for meaningful reforms or reparations. Rohingya communities have requested that Meta fund education initiatives in refugee camps, but the company rejected the proposal – despite the cost representing a fraction of its annual profits.
ACTIONS SOUGHT
The groups called on:
- Governments and international bodies must strengthen oversight of Big Tech platforms to ensure accountability for human rights impacts.
- Meta shareholders to push company leadership to reinstate safeguards that protect vulnerable communities from online-fueled violence.
- The SEC to investigate Meta for potential violations of securities laws related to its failure to disclose the risks associated with its content policies.
