Tag: Afghanistan

Washington Post Calls for Closing  Guantanamo Bay Prison 

In the following  January 15 Editorial, the Washington Post called flor closing the U. S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.[1]

“President Joe Biden is set to leave office Monday as the third president to try — and fail — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This ugly symbol of one of the most regrettable policies in recent American history will persist into another administration, and very likely beyond.”

“President George W. Bush opened Guantánamo at the height of the “war on terror” and quickly filled it with 780 men. After belatedly realizing that its existence had become a terrorist recruiting tool and a blight on America’s global standing as a beacon of justice, Bush wanted to close it but settled for reducing the population to 242 inmates. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to close the prison, but once elected he was stymied by Congress, managing only to reduce its population to 40. President Donald Trump, in his first term, pledged to keep the prison running and fill it with “some bad dudes,” but added no prisoners.”

“Biden deserves credit for bringing Guantánamo’s inmate population down to 15. This month, in the largest-ever transfer of detainees, 11 Yemeni men were sent to Oman. This followed the movement in December of two detainees to Malaysia and one to Kenya.”

“The remaining prisoners are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. There is also one Palestinian and one stateless Rohingya Muslim who was captured by Pakistani troops near the Afghanistan border in 2001.”

“The inmate population might have been reduced further in August, had Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin not stepped in at the last moment to nix a plea deal with three men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi had agreed to plead guilty before a military commission hearing their cases in exchange for the government taking the death penalty off the table. The men would have served life in prison instead. Austin’s decision to revoke the plea deal was inexplicable — he would have, or should have, known about it long before it became public — and can only be marked down to the political calendar; the presidential election was three months away, and the families of the 9/11 victims might have been outraged by a deal that spared the lives of some of the terror plot’s masterminds. Austin’s decision was overturned by a military judge, and the deal is now stalled.”

“Biden also could have moved more quickly early in his term if he had made emptying Guantánamo a higher priority — as might have been expected from a president who said “democracy promotion” was a core tenet of his foreign policy. Keeping inmates detained for decades in a parallel legal structure, without charges, after many were subjected to torture and denied basic due process (the presumption of innocence and speedy trials, for instance) contradicts core principles of American justice. For 23 years, Guantánamo’s dark stain has hampered America’s ability to honestly condemn other countries for using arbitrary detention and torture, and for denying basic human rights for the accused.”

“Opening Guantánamo was a mistake from the start, and presidents since Bush can be blamed for not correcting it. But Congress has thrown up obstacles. Biden and Obama were both hamstrung by foolish legislation that tightly restricted detainee transfers to other countries and altogether prohibited sending them to prisons on U.S. soil because of specious concerns about security. Federal prisons already hold convicted terrorists, including shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, sometimes called the 20th hijacker.”

“Leaving only 15 detainees in Guantánamo Bay at an estimated cost of about $500 million a year — $33 million per prisoner — exposes the absurdity of keeping the prison open at all.”

“Abuse of detainees during wars or periods of mass trauma is tragically common. Think of the forced relocation and imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II. But it is left to future leaders to acknowledge and correct such wrongs. President-elect Trump, who signed an executive order in 2018 to keep Guantánamo open, has expressed no interest in closing it. But in 2019 he did acknowledge that the cost of maintaining the prison was “crazy.” If he is now serious about wanting to improve government efficiency, he should work toward transferring the remaining inmates to secure federal prisons.”

Conclusion. Give thanks to the Washington Post for this Editorial.

=========================

[1] Editorial, After 23 shameful years, close Guantanamo, Wash. Post (Jan. 15, 2025).

 

U.S. Again Ranks Cuba in Worst Category for Human Trafficking

On June 24, the U.S. State Department released its 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report on human trafficking, whose “severe forms” are defined in the U.S. Trafficking Victims Proetection Act (TVPA) as: “sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age” or “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.”[1]

U.S. Secretary of State’s Comments

U.S. Seretary of State Antony J. Blinken opened the State Department’s session with the following message:

  • “Human trafficking is a stain on the conscience of our society.  It fuels crime, corruption, and violence.  It distorts our economies and harms our workers. And it violates the fundamental right of all people to be free.”
  • “Around the globe, an estimated 27 million people are exploited for labor, services, and commercial sex.  Through force, fraud, and coercion, they are made to toil in fields and factories, in restaurants and residences.  Traffickers prey on some of the world’s most marginalized and vulnerable individuals – profiting from their plight.”
  • “The State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report provides the world’s most comprehensive assessment of this abhorrent practice, as well as efforts by governments and stakeholders around the globe to combat it.  By measuring progress in 188 countries – including the United States – we are advancing President Biden’s commitment to prevent trafficking, prosecute perpetrators, and protect survivors.”
  • “Even as this resource covers long-standing forms and methods of trafficking, it also examines the growing role of technology in both facilitating exploitation and countering it.”
  • “Digital tools have amplified the reach, scale, and speed of trafficking. Perpetrators use dating apps and online ads to recruit victims.  They use online platforms to sell illicit sexual content.  They leverage encrypted messaging and digital currencies to evade detection.”
  • “At the same time, technology is also one of our most powerful tools to combat this enduring scourge.  Mobile phones, social media platforms, and artificial intelligence make it possible for advocates and law enforcement to raise greater awareness about the rights of workers and migrants, locate victims and perpetrators of online sexual exploitation, and analyze large amounts of data to detect emerging human trafficking trends.”
  • “As technology makes it easier for traffickers to operate across geographies and jurisdictions, those of us committed to rooting out this horrendous crime – in government, businesses, civil society – can and must work together and coordinate our efforts.”

U.S. Ambassador at Large’s Comments

Cindy Dyer, the U.S. Ambassor at Large, added comments about this report that focused on the importance of partners (survivors, other governments and non-governmental agencies) in combatting this trafficking.

Ranking of Countries

The report ranked all countries of  the world into the following tiers:

  • “Tier 1 Countries whose governments fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.” (30 countries, including the U.S.)
  • “Tier 2 Countries whose governments do not fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards.” (105 countries)
  • “Tier 2 Watch List. Countries whose governments do not fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards, and for which:the estimated number of victims of severe forms of trafficking is very significant or is significantly increasing and the country is not taking proportional concrete actions; or there is a failure to provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking in persons from the previous year, including increased investigations, prosecutions, and convictions of trafficking crimes, increased assistance to victims, and decreasing evidence of complicity in severe forms of trafficking by government officials.” (26 countries)
  • “Tier 3. Countries whose governments do not fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.” In addition, “The TVPA, as amended, lists additional factors to determine whether a country should be on Tier 2 (or Tier 2 Watch List) versus Tier 3: the extent to which the country is a country of origin, transit, or destination for severe forms of trafficking; the extent to which the country’s government does not meet the TVPA’s minimum standards and, in particular, the extent to which officials or government employees have been complicit in severe forms of trafficking; reasonable measures that the government would need to undertake to be in compliance with the minimum standards in light of the government’s resources and capabilities to address and eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons; the extent to which the government is devoting sufficient budgetary resources to investigate and prosecute human trafficking, convict and sentence traffickers; and obtain restitution for victims of human trafficking; and the extent to which the government is devoting sufficient budgetary resources to protect victims and prevent the crime from occurring.” (24 countries, including Cuba. The other countries so ranked are Afghanistan, Algeria, Belarus, Burma, Cambodia, Chad, China (People’s Republic of), Curacao, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of ), Macau, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Sint Maarten, South Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.)

Report’s Comments on Cuba

 In the section entitled “Topics of Special Interest” the report discussed  “Human Trafficking in Cuba’s Labor Export Program.” Here is what it said:

“Each year, the Cuban government sends tens of thousands of workers around the globe under multi-year cooperation agreements negotiated with receiving countries.  While medical missions remain the most prevalent, the Cuban government also profited from other similarly coercive labor export programs, including those involving teachers, artists, athletes and coaches, engineers, forestry technicians, and nearly 7,000 merchant mariners worldwide.   According to a report published by the Cuban government, by the end of 2023, there were more than 22,000 government-affiliated Cuban workers in over 53 countries, and medical professionals composed 75 percent of its exported workforce.  The COVID-19 pandemic increased the need for medical workers in many places around the world, and the Cuban government used the opportunity to expand its reach by increasing the number of its medical personnel abroad through the Henry Reeve Brigades, which Cuba first initiated in 2005 to respond to natural disasters and epidemics.  Experts estimate the Cuban government collects $6 billion to $8 billion annually from its export of services, which includes the medical missions.  The labor export program remains the largest foreign revenue source for the Cuban government.”

“There are serious concerns with Cuba’s recruitment and retention practices surrounding the labor export program.  While the conditions of each international labor mission vary from country to country, the Cuban government subjects all government-affiliated workers to the same coercive laws.  Cuba has a government policy or pattern to profit from forced labor in the labor export program, which includes foreign medical missions.  The Cuban government labels workers who leave the program without completing it as “deserters,” a category that under Cuban immigration law deems them as “undesirable.”  The government bans workers labeled as “deserters” and “undesirables” from returning to Cuba for eight years, preventing them from visiting their families in Cuba.  It categorizes Cuban nationals who do not return to the country within 24 months as having “emigrated.”  Individuals who emigrate lose all their citizen protections, rights under Cuban law, and any property they left behind.  These government policies and legal provisions, taken together, coerce workers and punish those seeking to exercise freedom of movement.  According to credible sources, by 2021, the Cuban government had sanctioned 40,000 professionals under these provisions, and by 2022, there were approximately 5,000 children forcibly separated from their parents due to the government’s policies surrounding the program.”

“Complaints filed with the International Criminal Court and the UN indicate most workers did not volunteer for the program, some never saw a contract or knew their destination, many had their passports confiscated by Cuban officials once they arrived at their destination, and almost all had “minders” or overseers.  According to the complaints and survivors, Cuban heads of mission in the country subjected workers to surveillance, prevented them from freely associating with locals, and imposed a strict curfew.  Cuba also confiscated between 75 and 90 percent of each worker’s salary.  As a result of the well-founded complaints and information about the exploitative nature of Cuba’s labor export program, at the end of 2023, the UN Special Rapporteur for Contemporary Forms of Slavery filed a new communication outlining the persistent concerns with the program, particularly for Cuban workers in Italy, Qatar, and Spain.”

“While exploitation, including forced labor, of workers remains the primary concern with the program, Cuba’s practices can also negatively impact a host country’s healthcare system.  Survivors of the program have reported being forced by the Cuban in-country mission director to falsify medical records and misrepresent critical information to justify their presence and need to local authorities.  Some individuals reported discarding medications, fabricating names, and documenting medical procedures that never occurred.  When medical workers refused to comply with the demands of the Cuban in-country mission director, they faced punishment and retaliation.  While the Cuban government promotes workers as highly skilled medical professionals and specialists, these workers often lack adequate medical training to treat complex conditions.  These practices are unethical, negligent, exploitative, and risk the lives of those they serve.”

“Governments should make efforts to combat human trafficking, and this includes not purchasing goods or services made or provided with forced labor.  Governments that utilize Cuba’s labor export programs despite the serious concerns with the program should at a minimum conduct frequent and unannounced labor inspections to screen these workers for trafficking indicators and employ victim-centered interviewing techniques.  These host governments should ensure all Cuban workers are subject to the same laws, regulations, and protections as for other migrant workers and that they are not brought via a negotiated agreement with the Government of Cuba that limits these protections or exempts Cuban workers from Wage Protections Systems or other tools designed to strengthen transparency.  Officials should ensure workers maintain complete control of their passports and medical certifications and can provide proof of full salary payment to bank accounts under the workers’ control.  They should scrutinize medical reports produced by these workers, offer protection for those who face retaliation and punishment for terminating their employment, and raise awareness of trafficking risks for all foreign workers, including government-affiliated Cuban workers.”

Cuba’s Comments on This Report[2]

On June 24, Granma (the official voice of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba) said, “[A lier is] the neighboring government, that one to the north of the archipelago, which, like the naked king in a children’s story, displays its falsehoods about Cuba, without realizing that its shame is in the air; so arrogant is its arrogance.The current U.S. administration arbitrarily insists on keeping Cuba in the worst category (level 3) in its recently published annual State Department report on human trafficking. The actions of the Washington authorities, marked by political motivations, deserved the response, from . . . the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and President of the Republic, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez [who said]:

“The empire has once again listed Cuba in its manipulative report on human trafficking, an outrageous maneuver in the open war against Cuban medical collaboration. Enough cynicism, Secretary Blinken. You are well aware of our zero-tolerance policy for this criminal practice. To justify the action, the report referred to the year 2023 uses contradictory arguments, based on the defamation of the work of Cuban medical collaboration in more than a hundred countries. Cuba’s cooperation with other peoples in the field of health is so humane that they have to attack it. It bothers them that, in the midst of the lordship of perversity and dishonor with which they pretend to dominate the world, the unsubmissive island brings light to the darkness and health to those who suffer.”

“But it is not fortuitous to include Cuba in spurious lists, to consider the island in the worst category in its report on human trafficking allows the White House to justify the blockade and the endless saga of coercive measures aimed at starving its people.”

“It would seem that the world is upside down: those who promote human trafficking, encouraging illegal departures, those who hinder the normal migratory flow between the two nations, are the ones who judge and punish.”

“Those who do not allow – to cite just one example – our baseball players to benefit from an agreement that prevents them from falling into the arms of human traffickers to reach the MLB, are the same ones who seek to condemn those who maintain a zero tolerance policy against human trafficking.”

Conclusion

This is a very complicated report, and the State Department website says, “This posted version is not fully accessible, meaning it may be inaccessible or incompatible with assistive technology. An accessible version will be posted as soon as the ongoing updates are concluded.” (Thus, there may be errors in this post and readers are invited to note any such corrections.)

=============================

[1]U.S. State Dep’t, 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report (June 2024); The US considers that the regime ‘is not making significant efforts’ to combat human trafficking, Diario de Cuba (June 24, 2024).

[2] Capote, Accusing Cuba of human trafficking, another ruse to justify economic warfare, Granma (June 26, 2024).

Cuba’s Poor Ranking in the World Democracy Index

Each year the British magazine The Economist publishes its World Democracy Index. For 2023 Cuba ranked 135th our of 167 world-wide countries and 22nd out of 24 Latin American countries.[i]

The five principles taken into account for this analysis and ranking are: electoral process and pluralism; functioning of the Government; political participation; democratic political culture; and civil liberties. The countries are then grouped into four categories: full democracy, deficient democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.

World Ranking

Cuba was given the 135th ranking out of 167 countries.

“Norway remains the most democratic country,” a position it has occupied for 14 years” while “Afghanistan is at the bottom for the third consecutive year.

“Less than 8% of the world’s population live in full democracies” while “39.4% are under authoritarian rule.”

Latin America Ranking

Only two Latin American countries (Uruguay and Costa Rica) received the top rank of “full democracy.’ Cuba followed by Venezuela and Nicaragua were placed in the bottom category of “authoritarian regimes” while Haiti was assigned an even lower ranking of “country in state of collapse.”

On a population basis, “just over 1% of the region’s population lives in a full democracy, the majority (54%) live in a flawed democracy, 35% in a hybrid regime and 9% in an authoritarian regime.”

“Latin America fell by the most, and recorded its eighth consecutive drop. El Salvador, where Nayib Bukele ran for re-election as president in defiance of the constitution (and easily won [in early February]), was the worst performer in the region.”

=============================

[i]  Cuba ranks 135th in the 2023 World Democracy Index, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 19, 2024); Where democracy is most at risk, Economist (Feb. 14, 2024)

U.S. Report on Latest Session of U.N. Human Rights Council 

The U.S. State Department on October 17 delivered its report on the just-concluded 54th session of the U.N. Human Rights Council.[1] Here are the highlights of that report:

“Establishing an investigative mandate in Sudan . . . [The U.S.] was a member of the core group that established an international fact-finding mission to investigate human rights violations and abuses in Sudan. . . as reports of atrocities and other abuses continue, such as conflict-related sexual violence, ethnically motivated killings, and burning of villages in Darfur and elsewhere.”

Renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation . . . [The U.S. co-sponsored this renewal as] Moscow’s campaign has worsened life for Russia’s citizens and made it dangerous for civil society organizations, media, and other independent voices to provide information or express dissent.  Russia continues to hold hundreds of political prisoners, including many sentenced for their criticism of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Impunity for human rights abuses in the North Caucasus region, including enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, also remains an urgent concern.”

“Renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan . . . [The U.S. co-sponsored this renewal] as the Taliban continues to target women and girls, government critics, former officials, and human rights activists through detentions, physical abuse, intimidation, and killings.”

“Advancing Gender Equality. . .[as the U.S.] reaffirmed its support for eliminating discriminatory laws and practices against women and girls in all their diversity, advanced the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and underscored the importance of the right of everyone to education.  We co-sponsored and helped defend resolutions that advance gender equality, including Preventing Maternal Mortality and Morbidity and Girls Education.  The United States helped defeat a slate of hostile amendments seeking to weaken inclusive gender language from these and other resolutions.”

“Supporting Racial Equity and Justice . . . [the U.S.] demonstrated its deep commitment to addressing the challenges of systemic racism both at home and abroad, . . .[by joining] consensus on the renewal of the Mandate of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, [and by co-sponsoring] the resolution entitled Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples, which laid the foundation for enhancing the participation of Indigenous Peoples in the work of the Council.”

“Other Priorities: . . .[The U.S.] co-sponsored resolutions to continue reporting on Burundi and provide assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights . . . [and by joining] consensus on resolutions providing human rights assistance in Cambodia, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic; [and by co-sponsoring] thematic resolutions on such topics including enforced or involuntary disappearances; centrality of care and support from a human rights perspective; the promotion of truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-reoccurrence; the human rights of older persons; the World Programme for Human Rights Education; and the International Year of the Family.”

“Joint Statements: . . . [The U.S. led joint statements on [a] the heightened risks associated with surveillance technologies, including commercial spyware, and the importance of safeguards and responsible practices in the development and use of these tools to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and [b] safeguarding the human rights of women and girls across the Americas.”. . .[In addition, the U.S.] joined joint statements on Syria, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Ethiopia, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, President Nelson Mandela’s Commitment to the UDHR and VDPA, sexism in sport, antisemitism in sport, rights of intersex persons, the rights of LGBTQI+ persons, reprisals, social reintegration of prisoners, and enhancing access to assistive technologies for older persons, and vaccination, immunization, and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.”

“Side Events: [The U.S. co-sponsored events] … on combatting antisemitism, … the Holocaust, and on human rights in Russia, Yemen, and Ukraine.”

=====================

[1] U.S. Dep’t State, Outcomes of the 54th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (Oct. 17, 2023).

Should the U.S. Modify Its Stance Against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

As discussed in a prior post, on August 22, 2023, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, it had committed at least 800 human rights violations against Afghans who had assisted the U.S. In addition, that U.N. agency also noted that the Taliban had imposed the most radical gender policies, denying education and employment to millions of Afghan women and girls. [1]

Nevertheless, Graeme Smith, an analyst at the Crisis Group who has worked in that country since 2005 and who recently spent several months there, has said, “Most of the stuff we want to do [in that country] requires working with the Taliban.” In addition, in an article in Foreign Affairs, Smith urged western governments and institutions “to establish more functional relationships with the Taliban” that could include assistance with Afghanistan’s electricity grid, banking system and water management. Other experts and humanitarian groups have urged the U.S. to provide the Taliban with direct economic assistance to alleviate the country’s desperate poverty and hunger.[2]

Some positive points about the Taliban also emerged at a late July meeting of the U.S. State Department’s special representative for that country, Thomas West, and other U.S. officials with Taliban officials in Qatar. There was discussion of the country’s “declining opium poppy production and promising economic and counterterrorism actions and that there was openness to a technical dialogue regarding economic stabilization issues soon.” Note also was made of “recent [Afghan] data indicating declining inflation, growth of merchandise exports and imports.”[3]

At this U.S.-Taliban meeting, however, the U.S. also criticized the Taliban and the country’s “deteriorating human rights situation . . ., particularly for women, girls and vulnerable communities,” and its detentions, media crackdowns and limits on religious practices.

A New York Times columnist, Michael Crowley, also wonders whether the U.S. should modify its opposition to the Taliban while pointing out other positive aspects of Taliban rule: fears of an Afghan civil war have not materialized, and the Taliban apparently have prevented a return of a terrorist group that might threaten the U.S. and have cracked down on corruption and banned opium poppy cultivation. [4]

Reactions

These voices of moderation and practicality deserve consideration, especially if the U.S. could obtain Taliban cooperation on allowing peaceful removal of Afghans who had assisted the U.S. The successful implementation of these ideas might well lead to subsequent adoption of other partial measures of positive change.

============================

[1] U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners, dwkcommentaries.com ( Aug. 26, 2023).

[2] Smith, The World Has No Choice But to Work With the Taliban, Foreign Affairs (Aug. 11, 2023)

[3]  U.S. State Department, Meeting of U.S. Officials with Taliban Representatives, (July 31, 2023); U.S. State Department, Thomas West, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.

[4] Crowley, Two Years After Afghanistan Exit, Biden Resists Calls for More Taliban Contact, N.Y. Times (Aug. 30, 2023).

 

U.S. Afghan Special Visa Program Still Facing Immense Problems 

In August 2023, the U.S. State Department’s Office of Inspector General released its report on evaluation of 2018-22 adjustments to the Afghan Special Visa Program, which was established in 2009 to resettle “Afghans who had worked on behalf of the [U.S.] in Afghanistan and had experienced an ongoing and serious threat as a result.”[1]

The Report’s Findings

“A. The Department Made Efforts To Streamline Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Processing Beginning in February 2021, but Challenges Remain.” More specifically, “as of December 2022, these actions had not eliminated the significant and growing Afghan SIV applicant backlog. Specifically, the Department increased staffing to process emails and determine applicant eligibility; coordinated with the Department of Defense to verify employment; incorporated new software to help process emails; eliminated a portion of the application process; leveraged posts worldwide for SIV interviews; and established remote consular operations in Doha, Qatar. However, because of an increased interest in the program after [the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in] August 2021, the Department experienced an influx of applications causing a backlog for which the Department had inadequate staffing to process. Without additional dedicated resources to address the situation, the backlog in SIV applications will remain a significant challenge.”

“B. COVID-19 Caused Delays to Afghan SIV Processing and Increased the Backlog of Applicants.” More specifically, “the COVID-19 pandemic stalled the Afghan SIV application process, which in-turn increased the number of SIV applicants awaiting in-person interviews….

Embassy Kabul suspended visa interviews twice: from March 2020 to February 2021 and from June to July 2021 because of COVID-19 outbreaks. However, telework allowed the Department to continue some phases of SIV applicant processing.”

“C. The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program Faces Challenges and Would Benefit From a Strategic Performance Management Approach.” More specifically, “The Department relies on Taliban cooperation for SIV applicant relocation from the country because of a lack of a [U.S.] ground presence in Afghanistan. In addition, the Department has not developed and implemented a strategic performance management approach to resolving the Afghan SIV applicant backlog, and the Department’s Afghan SIV Senior Coordinating Official position has had periods of vacancy and frequent turnover since 2017. Developing and implementing a strategic performance management approach would benefit the Afghan SIV program and help address the SIV applicant backlog.”

“The reliance on Taliban cooperation because of the lack of US diplomatic ground presence in Afghanistan impacts the ability for Afghan SIV applicants to exit Afghanistan and arrive at a US diplomatic post for visa processing.” Indeed, “one of the biggest challenges to SIV applicants departing Afghanistan is the lack of freedom of movement out of Afghanistan, which is dependent on Taliban cooperation. The Taliban’s willingness to approve flights, to allow women to depart Afghanistan alone, to determine the number of aircraft Kabul International Airport can accommodate, and other factors impacted freedom of movement for Afghans.. . .”

As of April 2023, the Department estimates that 840,000 principal applicants and family members remain in Afghanistan with uncertainty where they are in the application process. As of August 1, the U.S. has “issued nearly 34,000 SIVs to principal applicants and their eligible family members while another 80,000 applicants are in process with tens of thousands having begun the applications.

The Report’s Recommendation

The Report then made the following Recommendation: “OIG recommends that the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Senior Coordinating Official, in coordination with the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Joint Executive Office for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, develop and implement a strategic performance management approach to improve the outcomes of the Afghan SIV program, including establishing goals and measures of success to evaluate progress against those established goals.”

The Department’s Management responded to that Recommendation as follows: “The Department concurred with the intent of the recommendation and requested that OIG revise the recommendation to read “the [Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Senior] Coordinating Official, in coordination with the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Joint Executive Office for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, continue to implement procedural changes and allocate resources in service of meeting the Department’s Afghan SIV processing goals. The Department should use the efficiency improvements, Chief of Mission (COM) decisions, and visa interview sections included in the quarterly Congressional reports on SIV processing to track progress, referencing the Program Design and Performance Management Toolkit as needed.”

“Additionally, Department comments noted that ‘after reviewing the Program Design and Performance Management Toolkit [mentioned in the finding] …, the Department maintains that Afghan SIV … adjudication is a process, not a program. However, the Department is aware of the value in this toolkit and will utilize it as a reference, as needed, while we continue to assess existing [Afghan SIV] processing goals.”

Conclusion

This blog already has discussed the Taliban’s human rights violations against in-country Afghans who had helped the U.S. troops before their August 2021 withdrawal.[2]

============================

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation of Adjustments to the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program From 2018 through 2022 (Aug. 2023)  Hansler, Challenges to Afghan special visa program remain two years after US withdrawal, State Dept, watchdog finds, CNN.com (Sept. 1, 2023) . See also Atwood & Hansler, State Department review of US withdrawal from Afghanistan includes far more findings than White House document, CNN (April 7, 2023)

[2] U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights  Violations Against Former U.S. Partners, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 26, 2023); COMMENT: Dangerous Life in Afghanistan of Family of U.S. Interpreter, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 29, 2023).

U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners

On March 28, 2002, the U.N. Security Council established the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) to promote peace and stability in that country and thereafter that mandate annually has been renewed and revised to reflect the continued needs of that country. This Mission’s headquarters is in Kabul with a field presence of around 1,187 staff throughout the country.[1]

UNAMA’s Report on Taliban’s Human Rights Violations[2]

On August 22, 2023, UNAMA released its report that the Taliban has committed at least 800 human-rights violations against U.S. partners since the Taliban’s takeover of the country in 2021. Members of the Afghan National Army are at the “greatest risk,” followed by national and local police officers and National Directorate of Security officials. Targets also include prosecutors, judges and national, provincial and district officials who served in the U.S.-backed government.

At least 218 Afghan partners have been murdered, the report says. “Some were taken to detention facilities and killed while in custody,” the report says, while “others were taken to unknown locations and killed, their bodies either dumped or handed over to family members.”

In addition, the report asserts that there have been 144 instances of torture and maltreatment, including beatings with pipes and cables, plus at least 14 enforced disappearances and more than 424 arbitrary arrests.

Reactions to the U.N. Report[3]

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported on the above details of this report.

Their articles also noted that “tens of thousands of such former officials remain in Afghanistan, unable or unwilling to join the scramble of Afghans to flee abroad” after the Taliban takeover and inhabit a “climate of  fear.”

These news articles quoted the report as saying, “the abuses it found work against the healing of wounds in society from Afghanistan’s 40 years of war, and contravene the Taliban’s obligations under international human-rights law” and “the de facto authorities’ failure to fully uphold their publicly stated commitment and to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account may have serious implications for the future stability of Afghanistan.”

The Wall Street Journal also published an editorial claiming that “the Biden Administration wants Americans to forget about Afghanistan” and “continues to offer too few visas for Afghans who helped America. Some Afghan partners told the U.N. that they ‘have gone into hiding’ and ‘live in fear of being arrested or killed by a member of the de facto authorities.’” Therefore, this editorial concludes, “These ugly details add to the disgrace of one of America’s worst betrayals.”

The Taliban government in a statement appended to the UNAMA report said that after the Taliban had seized power, its supreme leader had issued a blanket amnesty to all former government members, that only people acting against the Taliban had been arrested and prosecuted and,  “After the victory of the Islamic Emirate until today, cases of human rights violations (murder without trial, arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and other acts against human rights) by the employees of the security institutions of the Islamic Emirate against the employees and security forces of the previous government have not been reported.”

Although not mentioned in the U.N. report, the U.S. needs to adopt the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide permanent legal status for Afghans who have been admitted to the U.S. on temporary parole visas because of their assistance to U.S. troops and personnel before September 2021.[4]

============================

[1] UNAMA, About.

[2] Press Release, U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Impunity Prevails for Human Rights Violations Against Former Government Officials and Armed Forces Members (Aug. 22, 2023); UNAMA, A barrier to securing peace: Human rights violations against former government officials and former armed force members in Afghanistan: 15 August 2021—30 June 2023.

[3] Pena, U.N. Says Taliban Committed Rights Abuses Despite Blanket Amnesty, N.Y. Times (Aug. 22, 2023); Shah, Afghans Who Allied with U.S. Face Killings, Arrests Under Taliban Rule, U.N. Finds, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023); Editorial: The Fate of America’s Afghan Partners, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023)Response by the de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs to UNAMA Human Rights Service report, regarding the violation of human rights against the employees and military forces of the previous government, Directorate of Human Rights & Women’s International Affairs, Kabul (Aug. 2023).

[4] Introduction of New Proposed Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (July 31, 2023).

Introduction of New Proposed Afghan Adjustment Act 

On July 13, 2023, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (Dem, MN) with five co-sponsoring Democrat Senators and six co-sponsoring Republican Senators introduced a new proposed Afghan Adjustment Act (S.2327). The Democrat co-sponsors are Senators Coon (DE), Blumenthal (CT), Shaheen (NH), Durban (IL) and Menendez (NJ), and the Republican co-sponsors are Senators Graham  (SC), Moran (KS), Mullin (OK), Murkowski (AK), Wicker (MS) and Tillis (NC). After two readings the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[1]

On the same date the identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Miller-Meeks (Rep., IA) with 11 Republican co-sponsors and 12 Democrat co-sponsors and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

At that time, Senator Klobuchar said, “Giving our Afghan allies a chance to apply for legal status is the right and necessary thing to do. This bipartisan legislation will help provide Afghans who have sacrificed so much for our country with the legal certainty they deserve as they rebuild their lives. I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bipartisan legislation and provide Afghans who sought refuge in the U.S. with the opportunity for a stable future in their new home.”

Klobuchar also said on the Senate floor that many Afghans vouched for by U.S. top military leaders ”took bullets for us, literally. And we must stand by them. The decision we make for them of whether we live up to the covenant we made to our Afghan allies is going to reverberate militarily and diplomatically for longer than any of us will serve in this body.” Klobuchar added that the U.S. did not leave Hmong and Vietnamese people in limbo when they were evacuated. Generations later, Hmong people have become police officers, elected officials, firefighters and “pillars of our community.” These Afghans “can’t go back—they’d be killed by the Taliban.” Noting support from many U.S. retired generals  and leaders of congressional armed services committees, she said, “It is really a military priority.”

Republican Senator Graham made a similar statement: “It is imperative that America assist those Afghans who supported our country and that fled the oppressive regime of the Taliban. We must let the world know that we do not abandon those who aid America.  This bill works toward that goal while ensuring strong vetting to protect America’s own security,”

The press release by Senator Klobuchar’s office noted that this “legislation has received the endorsement of many groups including The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Blue Star Families, and more.

Senate Co-Sponsors Comments About the Bill

Senator Blumenthal observed, ““I know firsthand about the translators and guards and others who served putting their lives on the line. And now in Connecticut, I’ve had the privilege of calling many of them [and their families] my friends. It is a promise. Great nations keep their promises. These individuals are among our most loyal friends. The test is that they put targets on their back from the Taliban. They knew they and their families would be at risk if the Taliban ever took over. Now the Taliban has done it, and they cannot return. Nor can their families.”

Senator Coon said, ““We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Afghan people for the ways they supported U.S. forces for almost 20 years, often at great personal risk. The Afghan Adjustment Act is a first step toward keeping our word as a nation and honoring that debt. This bipartisan legislation would provide a pathway to lawful permanent status for certain Afghan civilians, offering them a way out of legal limbo and the looming threat of deportation with great risk to their personal safety, and after failing to pass this bill last year, we should take it up and pass it swiftly now. Congress has a track record of passing similar legislation on humanitarian grounds, and it is shameful that we have not done so yet.”

Coon also observed that this Act was “modeled after bipartisan bills that Congress has passed in the wake of other humanitarian crises and the Vietnam War.”  More specifically, the Afghan Adjustment Act would:

  • “Allow Afghans on humanitarian status who submit to additional vetting – including an in-person interview – to apply for permanent legal status. For these Afghans, the primary options under current law to gain permanent status are through our asylum system or the burdensome SIV process;”
  • “Expand the SIV program to include previously omitted groups, including the Female Tactical Teams of Afghanistan, the Afghan National Army Special Operations Command, the Afghan Air Force, and the Special Mission Wing of Afghanistan;” and
  • “Establish a task force to develop and implement a strategy for supporting Afghans outside of the United States who are eligible for SIV status and require the Department of State to respond to congressional inquiries about SIV applications.”

Senator Moran stated the bill would “allow Afghans who sought refuge in the United States to apply for permanent legal residency after undergoing additional vetting.. . . Allowing Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal residency will help provide certainty as they build their lives in the United States.”

Senator Murkowski stated, ““The United States must ensure that we keep our promises to our Afghan allies, and provide certainty for those who fled to the United States and have no place to return. I am proud to join my Senate colleagues in legislation to give innocent Afghans hope for a safer, brighter future.

Conclusion

In the final days of the last session of Congress, the prior version of the Afghan Adjustment Act had strong support in the House and Senate, but Iowa’s Republican Senator Chuck Grassley opposed and prevented its passage because he claimed there were “security concerns” due to purported inadequate vetting of projected beneficiaries of the bill.[2]

Therefore, now is the time to pass this bill!

================================

[1] S.2327, Afghan Adjustment Act (July 13, 2023); H.R. 4627, To provide support for nationals of Afghanistan who supported the United States mission in Afghanistan, adequate vetting for parolees from Afghanistan, adjustment of status of eligible individuals, and special immigrant status for at-risk Afghan allies and relatives of certain members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes (July 13, 2023); Sen Klobuchar, Press Release, Klobuchar, Graham, Coons, Moran, Blumenthal, Murkowski, Shaheen, Wicker, Durbin, Tillis, Miller-Meeks, Blumenauer Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to Allow Afghan Allies in the United States to Apply for Permanent Legal Status, (July 14, 2023); Sen. Blumenthal, Press Release, Blumenthal Calls for Path to Permanent Legal Status for At-risk Afghan Allies (July 21, 2023); Sen. Cooss, Press Release, Senator Coons, colleagues introduce bipartisan legislation to allow Afghan allies in U.S. to apply for permanent legal status (July 17, 2023); Sen. Moran, Press Release, Sen. Moran, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Allow Afghans Allies in the United States to Apply for Permanent Legal Status (July 17, 2023); Sen. Tillis, Press Release, Tillis Co-Introduces Legislation to Protect Afghan Allies (July 18, 2023). Rao, Two years later, a renewed push to help Afghan evacuees gain citizenship, StarTribune (July 30, 2023).

[2] Need To Prod Congress To Enact Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 17, 2022). See also prior posts about Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com.

U.N. Demands Release of Guantanamo Prisoner

In November 2022 (and publicly released on  April 28, 2023), the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which has no enforcement powers,  urged the U.S. to release  immediately a prisoner (Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Husayn) who was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and became the first prisoner at a CIA “black site” (secret prison) where he was waterboarded and thereafter held until he was transferred to the Guantanamo prison in 2006. Ever since then he has been held there without charges. The U.S. has argued that although this prisoner was never a member of Al Qaeda, he allegedly helped jihadists reach Afghanistan for training before the 9/11 attacks.[1]

The U.N. Working Group found that this prisoner “had been denied a meaningful review of his detention and so was being unlawfully held. The appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Zubaydah immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.’” Before his transfer to Guantanamo, he was held in CIA sites in Afghanistan, Poland, Morocco, Lithuania and Thailand; in the last of which he was waterboarded, deprived of sleep and confined in a coffin-like box.

His attorney, “Lt. Col. Chantell M. Higgins, a U.S. Marine, said this condemnation should provide “a greater incentive for the United States to find a place for him to go, and release him.”

Another attorney and specialist in international human rights,, Helen Duffy, who brought his case before this U.N. body, said that he “has a well-founded fear of further violations if sent to Saudi [Arabia, where he was born],and we hope to engage with the United States and other states on alternative sites of relocation.”

Colonel Higgins suggested Qatar might be a suitable location as it “has been generous and successfully taken foreigners detained at Guantanamo.”

============================

[1] Rosenberg, U.N. Body Demands Release of Guantanamo Prisoner Who Was Tortured  by the C.I.A., N.Y. Times (May 1, 2023). See also U.S. Should Release All Guantanamo Prisoners and Close Down, dwkcommentaries.com (April 29, 2023).

U.S. Adopts Confusing New Program for Resettling Certain Foreigners

On January 19, the Biden Administration announced an additional program for the resettlement of certain foreigners, i.e., “refugees,” in the U.S. that directly will involve U.S. citizens, acting through the State Department’s U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This new program seeks to resettle refugees from Latin America and the Caribbean with the assistance of Americans “ranging from members of faith and civic groups, veterans, diaspora communities, businesses, colleges and universities, and more.” [1]

This new program already has its own website—Welcome Corps–which says that  more than 200 diverse organizations are signaling their support and that Americans will “work in groups of at least five  to welcome newcomers by securing and preparing initial housing, greeting refugee newcomers at the airport, enrolling children in school, and helping adults to find employment.” Most importantly, the individuals in these citizen groups will “offer a sense of welcome, belonging, and inclusion for families.”

The “Welcome Corps” website also describes its training program for “providing core private sponsoring services (e.g., housing, benefits and services access, cultural adjustment, etc.) and an overview of how to help facilitate the long-term integration of refugees, . . . the logistics of forming a Private Sponsor Group, fundraising, developing a Welcome Plan, and resiliency-building.” This training must be completed by at least one member of the Private Sponsor Group.”

Who Will Be Welcomed by the Welcome Corps? [2]

The initial Corps materials repeatedly use the word “refugee” to identify the foreigners it will be seeking to help relocate in the U.S. Those same materials also refer to  Latin Americans, Caribbeans, Afghans and Ukrainians as people they want to welcome to the U.S. Those are certainly laudatory goals.

But not all of those groups have been determined to meet the legal requirements for  “refugee” status under international and U.S. law as shown by the following:

  • International Law. On April 22, 1954, the international Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees went into force and became a binding treaty after its ratification or accession by the sixth state. Then after its amendment by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees that went into effect on October 4, 1967, the international definition of “refugee” was the following: Any person who “owing to well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

(Excluded from that international definition of “refugee” was “any person . . . [who] (a) . has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity . . . ; (b) . . .          has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; [and] (c) . . . has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the [U.N.].”)

  • U.S. Law. The U.S. did not ratify the previously mentioned Protocol (and by incorporation the previously mentioned Convention) until November 1, 1968, and 12 years later the U.S. finally adopted the implementing federal legislation (the Refugee Act of 1980), which defines “refugee” as follows: “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” That federal statute also provided, “The term ‘refugee’ does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

It must also be noted that this last Session of Congress failed to enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would have provided some temporary legal protection for Afghan evacuees who have not been determined to be “refugees.”[3]

Conclusion

It is utterly dumbfounding that the Departments of State and Homeland Security could erroneously use the important legal concept of “refugee” in this  matter of foreign policy.

============================

111 State Dep’t, Launch of the Welcome Corps—Private Sponsorship of Refugees (Jan. 19,2023); State Dep’t, U.S.  Refugee Admissions Program, (Jan. 19, 2023);  Welcome Corps Website, State Dep’t, U.S.  Refugee Admissions Program, (Jan. 19,2023); 200+ Organizations Signal Support for the Welcome Corps, New Service, Opportunities for Private Refugee Sponsorship; The Welcome Corps Essentials Training, Jordan, Biden Administration Invites Ordinary Americans to Help Settle Refugees, N.Y. Times (Jan. 19, 2023); Santana, (AP), Welcome Corps provides a new way for Americans to sponsor refugees, Ch. Sci. Monitor (Jan. 19, 2023).

[2] Refugee and Asylum Law: The Modern Era, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2011); Refugee and Asylum Law: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, dwkcommentaries.com (July 10, 2011); Weissbrodt, Ni Aolain, Fitzpatrick & Newman, International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process at 1040-42 (4th ed. 2009).

[3] Need To Prod Congress to Enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 17, 2022); Apparent Failure To Enact Bipartisan Immigration Bills, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 18, 2022); Congress Fails to Adopt Important Immigration Bills, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 28, 2022).