Julie Cordua, executive director of Thorn, a non-profit organization founded by Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, spoke passionately on the topic child exploitation and sexual abuse imagery for the Stanford Program on Human Rights’ Winter Speaker Series U.S Human Rights NGOs and International Human Rights on February 4, 2015.

Cordua addressed the Stanford audience about the importance of technology for acting as the “digital defenders of children." She provided a chilling account of child sexual exploitation, first describing the problem and then going on to challenge preconceived notions about it. For example, she highlighted that in order to tackle the issue, it must first be understood that it concerns a highly vulnerable population; most child victims of sexual exploitation come from extremely abusive backgrounds and many have been sexually abused by one or more parents.

Cordua emphasized that technology innovations have contributed to a proliferation of child exploitation and sexual abuse imagery through the use of encrypted networks that make it extremely difficult to hunt down perpetrators and find victims. Cordua feels that while technology is intensifying the problem, technology is also the solution.  Examples she gave were the development of algorithms that aim to track perpetrators and their victims and advertisements that encourage pedophiles to seek help.

Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights, queried Cordua on Thorn’s relationship with the government and private sector, as well as on Thorn’s approach for testing the efficacy of their programs. Cordua responded that Thorn does not apply for government funds so as to maintain independence over their projects but that they actively cultivate strong relationships with politicians and law enforcers. In relation to evaluation metrics, Cordua acknowledged that metrics are especially difficult in such a cryptic field as it is nearly impossible to know what numbers they are dealing with from the onset. Questions from the audience included effective strategies for changing the conversation of pedophilia in the public sphere, the emotional stamina required for pursuing such work, and strategies for connecting with and providing a safe platform for victims of child sexual exploitation.

Dana Phelps, Program Associate, Program on Human Rights

Carolyn Miles, CEO and president of Save the Children, spoke on her organization’s efforts to protect children’s rights in many countries of the world at the Stanford Program on Human Rights’ Winter Speaker Series U.S Human Rights NGOs and International Human Rights on February 11, 2015.

Throughout her talk, Miles addressed the Stanford audience about the importance of protecting the basic needs of children, proclaiming the Save the Children mission: Every child deserves a childhood.  She spoke about the urgent needs of child refugees in Syria, the organization’s biggest and most challenging hurdle at present. The audience grew still when Miles played a Save the Children commercial capturing a Syrian child’s experience in one year of her life during the wake of the crisis. Miles raised other important issues, such as the critical importance of developing longer-term strategies that support children in the aftershock of crises, which often can be more damaging than the initial crisis itself. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when thousands of children were displaced, organizations such as the Red Cross had no plan in place for caring for children in shelters beyond a short period of time. Save the Children trained Red Cross workers in preparedness techniques and strategies for emergency aftermath.

Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights and moderator of the event, questioned Miles on the organization’s strategy for accessing marginalized communities; prioritizing children that are forgotten or ignored; and the concern of overeducating and preparing children in countries with a depleted workforce. Miles believes that focusing on the hard-to-reach populations will close the gap between the majority and the minority, and that studies show that this is achievable when governments are made to feel accountable to their marginalized peoples when witnessed on an international level. In relation to unrealistically preparing children for the workforce, Miles stated that in the Middle East this may potentially be a problem, but that Save the Children endeavors to prepare students through matching their skillsets to jobs that are already available. When Stacy challenged Miles on the Western mindset that frames the Save the Children mission that “every child deserves a childhood," Miles agreed that it is a Western attitude but stood by her stance that she believes that all children under the age of eighteen are entitled to certain basic rights, regardless of non-Western cultural norms indicating otherwise. Questions from the audience included fundraising issues, learning from undesirable program evaluation results, dealing with diversity when designing projects and innovation in children’s rights.

Dana Phelps, Program Associate, Program on Human Rights

CDDRL Visiting Scholar and former Foreign Minister of Mongolia Zandanshatar Gombojav recently published an article in a Mongolian news outlet, Today.mn, commenting on the nation's deteriorating human rights record. Citing an increase in criminal cases involving foreign and domestic workers, Gombojov argues that Mongolia is no longer a secure and protected environment for business and investment. Without more transparent judicial processes, Gombojov believes Mongolia's economic difficulties will continue to worsen. Read more on Gombojav's commentary below, translated to English from Mongolian. For the full article in Mongolian, see the link above.

Lately, websites have been screaming loudly that freedom and human rights are being violated in Mongolia for both foreigners and local people. Those who run businesses are especially concerned, and live and work in constant fear.

It is accurate to say that present-day Mongolia has turned into a real nightmare for foreign investors.  Cases are sensationalized, regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator is guilty or not.  When cases involve politicians or businessmen, they continue until the accused are forced to their knees for the alleged crimes.

In Mongolia, we have an old saying about the sanctity of reputation that has seemingly been forgotten: “Break my bones instead of my reputation.”  Since 2005, there have been numerous cases when peoples’ reputations have been insulted and assaulted.  The system does not adjudicate or resolve cases according to a rule of law or well-established procedures, but rather through unsubstantiated, spurious and unethical allegations that have polluted Mongolian society.  And it doesn’t stop there.

The assault on reputations that is characterized by false accusations is expanding and becoming evermore pervasive, thus creating a huge obstacle to our economy’s development and growth.  It is unfortunate that the authorities are stirring up this circumstance, rather than seeking understanding, and taking firm action to combat mis-information and promote transparency and the rule-of-law.

One of the classic examples is the court verdict recently rendered on the three managers of “SouthGobi Sands (SGS),” which has been the object of sensational international news. If it is true that the three who have been accused are proven to have really committed tax evasion for their employer, SGS, then they should be punished according to the laws and procedures of Mongolia.  No one would argue with this.

But the case is not clear–cut or definitive. Doubt hangs behind the allegations because it is very unclear what kind of reasons or motivation are hiding behind the accusation.  The ex-managers of “SouthGobi Sands” have been sentenced to long prison terms by the criminal court, which makes everyone, foreign and domestic, worried. Foreign experts, including the US embassy, believe that this case has violated the three men’s human rights, and consequently the case has been carried actively by U.S. media.

Fortune.com reports “Rather than symbolizing due process in an emerging democracy, the trial’s numerous irregularities have raised fears that a country struggling with a resource curse has further dulled its economic prospects.”  Bloomberg Business quotes Chuluunbat Ochirbat, an economic advisor to PM Saikhanbileg as saying:  “It is an unusual practice in Mongolia that tax and other disputes are classified as criminal cases, “ and Dale Choi, founder of Independent Mongolia Metals & Mining Research in Ulaanbaatar, adds:  “It would create very negative publicity. Foreign investors and executives would be scared of signing documents in Mongolia.”  Mining.com, in an article entitled “Mongolian verdict sends chill through mining community,” comments that if the court decision is not reversed, “SouthGobi” will be bankrupted.

This is a small sample of the many posts that have appeared in U.S. and international media over the past two weeks regarding the court sentences of U.S. citizen, Justin Kapla and Philippine citizens, Hilarion V. Cajucom JR and Cristobal G. David.

If we look briefly at this world-wide sensational case: “Three ex-employees of foreign the invested company “SouthGobi Sands” have been sentenced to prison.  When, at the outset, the Tax Department detected a potential violation, they should have had independent experts prepare reports and statements in conjunction with the prosecutors and police overseeing the case. But, the Ministry of Finance prepared the reports itself, without expert review.

In addition, the Ministry’s subsequent inspections only fueled exaggerated reports, instead of inviting independent experts to prepare their own report, affirming or rejecting the legitimacy of the Tax Inspectors findings. The foreign-invested “SouthGobi” had an international audit organization inspect and prepare independent reports; but these were ignored by the Mongolian court.

Furthermore, the prosecutor initially requested that the three only pay a penalty, but later added the much stiffer request for prison terms.  What attracts our attention most is the definition of the case as a criminal case, not a civil case.  It is also puzzling that officials from the Tax Department were not present at the trial, and that the case had been returned twice because of insufficient evidence.

Justin Kapla had worked for “SouthGobi” for only 6 months at the time of the trial, though the tax evasion case had been ongoing for 5 years.  It is not very understandable which laws and rules exactly are served in Mongolia. Obviously, we know that telephone justice dominates in our country.

In the end, the three foreign citizens who were convicted were the hired employees of “SouthGobi”.  It is very unfair and unjust that the company owners and directors escaped prosecution for tax evasion, if indeed it is true and proven.  The owners and directors should be held responsible if there is evidence of wrong-doing, instead of sentencing ex-officers employed for only 6 months to 1 year.

The three are imprisoned in a foreign country accused of evading USD 6.8 billion in taxes. The question that they asked in court: “Did we really evade taxes and hide an amount of money that is equal to Mongolia’s GDP?”  These sound like the words of a desperate person, but they highlight the irresponsibility of our country’s courts and monitoring organizations.

The Mongolian authorities also drew a nonsensical and misleading parallel with the United States, arguing that if the same fraction of GDP was embezzled in the U.S. each politician would have USD 2.2 billion.

U.S. citizen Justin Kapla filed a complaint with the UN High Commission on Human Rights last summer.  Since then, he has noted repeatedly that his treatment and the irresponsible court decision will negatively affect foreign investment in Mongolia. If this negative news and reports continue to spread in international media, the reputation and credibility of the Mongolian courts will be further comprised, and fears will be fueled among people whose trust Mongolia needs.

Several years ago, there was case involving a Japanese investor who was sentenced to prison for drug abuse.  He was ultimately released, but only after having to address and overcome many issues.  First, the court had been playing around with investors from the Republic of China, Korea, and Japan.  Then, as the mining industry grew bigger, the court started harassing other large foreign investors.  It is no secret that small Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese investors are commonly robbed, threatened, and slandered in cases brought on false charges.

Private and public property is sacred in countries where a market economy exists.  The government, or some faction on behalf of the government, are invading private and public property and taking it for themselves. This is a very poisonous and unfortunate chain of events, that communicates to domestic and foreign investors that their businesses and investments in Mongolia are not secure or protected.

We know well that not only foreigners, but also our own people, are struggling to make a living.  They are nonetheless being labeled “criminals” nation-wide, and are accused of unproven crimes associated of “bribery and corruption.”  What we don’t know is how many father’s, son’s, mother’s and daughter’s reputations, work, and lives are being tarnished and damaged by this variant of modern-day repression?

Arresting, imprisoning, and punishing those who create wealth has become a sadness that plagues our society.  This issue has elicited much criticism from law-makers as well. During an interview on Mongol television and News.mn, Member of Parliament U. Enkhtuvshin said: “Rich mining and business owners are the intentional main targets. The authorities conceal the reputation of the individual, his/her family and business through paid media tools.  After that, they sentence him/her to imprisonment. The public is brain-washed by the media and think: “Oh, as expected, this guy has been sentenced for his “you know!!!” crime”.

These kinds of baseless accusations have sadly become commonplace in our society. My successor and now-former Minister of Foreign Affairs Lu. Bold once asked: “Who would want to live or work in a country where the authorities take away investors’ passports, ban them from traveling, and then arrest them for investing after desperately inviting them to come in?”  He added, “Mongolia has turned into a prison”.

In fact, the time has come for us to understand that Mongolia’s current economic difficulties derive from a crisis of politics and from our political structure.  Whose game is it, squeezing the foreign investors out at the same time that the whole world is speculating that Mongolia will go bankrupt from its debt crisis? Whose strategy is it?

Lauren Wedekind is a Stanford undergraduate studying Human Biology and Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. Her research focuses on social medicine and the potential for telemedicine to mitigate health care coverage gaps. Lauren believes that human rights advocacy requires a two-way street of listening and communication within and across national and cultural borders—which she explores with Stanford CDDRL, UNA-USA, and WFUNA on projects involving the right to health. Wedekind received funding from CDDRL's Program on Human Rights to travel and participate in the WFUNA Human Rights Youth Training Conference in Geneva, Switzerland.

By age seventeen, Nam had been forced into marrying a stranger, bearing his child, and risking her life to be a refugee on a remote island.  In April 1975, the North Vietnamese Communist Party took over the Republic of South Vietnam, and violently threatened residents of Saigon, South Vietnam’s then-capital and Nam’s hometown.  Like thousands of other residents, Nam’s family desperately uprooted from their relatively comfortable living situation, only to cram like sardines into an over-capacity boat headed toward international waters, hoping to be rescued by the United Nations.  With their lives in very real danger, the to-be refugees who boarded that boat did so without any guarantee that they would safely cross the passage across the Pacific Ocean.  In fact, these “boat people” were held hostage, robbed, raped, and beaten on three separate occasions by pirates in the Sea of China.  After the attacks, they floated aimlessly on the ocean for days, and were finally rescued by a UNHCR vessel, which guided them to refugee camps in Indonesia.  One year later, Nam and her boat’s survivors—those who were not killed by violence or disease—reached the United States.  The survivors who finally reached peacekeeping nations accepting refugees had often endured poverty, abuse, and posttraumatic mental and physical health issues.

Wedekind with her cohort of training attendees in Geneva.

This summer, I was honored to be nominated by UNA-USA to attend the WFUNA High Commissioner of Human Rights Training in Geneva, in which 30 young human rights advocates representing 25 countries learned about international human rights instruments and the UN Human Rights Council.  Through WFUNA’s training curriculum, and even more, through interactions with our peers, our cohort agreed on concepts of fundamental human rights—that people of all ages and backgrounds should be guaranteed: (1) Fundamental human rights and (2) The right to defend these rights.  Point (2) necessitates governments exercising structural competence to guarantee the protection of human rights for all members of society.  As part of Point (2), listening to many different viewpoints within society has been humbled me: As a human rights advocate, I am responsible for ensuring that I also understand the stories of the marginalized so that I can best voice collective advocacy points to others – advocacy is a two-way street. 

When watching the UN Human Rights Council Emergency Session on Gaza with the Human Rights Training in July, I was first awestruck that I was able to watch a history-making decision before my eyes.  As I held the wired translator earpiece to my ear for the last hour of the Session in which NGOs were stating their own perceptions of human rights violations on-the-ground, though, I realized that many stakeholders were actually leaving the assembly hall.  I wondered: “How can multilateral, international organizations realistically ensure that they respect the human dignity of all members of society without each ambassador engaging with community members who directly experience conflicts on-the-ground?”  I respect the major responsibilities of Ambassadors to the UN Human Rights council: (1) Developing realistic pictures of events he/she has often not directly perceived, (2) Communicating these pictures to members of his/her society, and (3) Voicing the collective opinions of his/her constituency on human rights issues in international engagements.  These three actions are not simple, but when put into practice, they enable action over apathy.

Since returning to the U.S., I have asked: “How can I be most useful to my society?”  After witnessing both multinational cooperation as well as largely unheard voices of NGOs in international human 

Wedekind at one of the training sessions at the UN.

In partnership with the Program on Human Rights at Stanford's Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, Afia Khan (Economics ’16) and I are developing a student-initiated course on health and human rights advocacy, which we will launch in 2015, for intermediate school through university-level students.  We hope to provide young people with a knowledge base and advocacy toolkit for young people on health and human rights, and to let them know what I have learned from UN Human Rights Council and Nam: Every single person can advocate for human rights – we must start small by exercising compassion to understand others’ experiences, and then share with others what we have learned.

Nam’s name changed to respect confidentiality.

Also see Wededkind's blog posted on the WFUNA website and on FSI Global Student Fellows' 'In The World' Blog. 

As part of the Arab Reform and Democracy Program's speaker series, University of Richmond Political Scientist Sheila Carapico discussed findings from her ground-breaking study Political Aid and Arab Activism: Democracy Promotion, Justice, and Representation (Cambridge University Press, 2013) which explores two decades’ worth of projects sponsored by American, European, and other transnational agencies in four key sub-fields: the rule of law, electoral design and monitoring, female empowerment, and civil society. European and US-based scholars and practitioners have debated the purposes and sometimes the (limited) macro-effects of programs designed to promote transitions from authoritarianism to democracy in Middle East countries. Yet this discussion often lacks analysis of on-the-ground experiences or ignores the cumulative wisdom of local counterparts and intermediaries. Carapico discussed controversies and contradictions surrounding projects in Egypt, Palestine, and Iraq (the three main cases) and Jordan, Morocco, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, and Lebanon (where democracy brokers also work) to help explain why so many feminists and other advocates for justice, free elections, and civic agency concluded that foreign funding is inherently political and paradoxical.

As part of the Arab Reform and Democracy Program speaker series, US Institute of Peace Vice-President for Applied Research on Conflict Steven Heydemann examined the future of authoritarian rule in the Arab region in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings. The uprisings that spread across the Middle East in 2011 created new hope for democratic change in the Arab world.  Four years later, the euphoria that greeted the Arab uprisings has given way to a far more somber mood, a recognition of the limits of mass protests to bring about political change, and acknowledgement that the region's entrenched authoritarian regimes are more resilient than many protesters imagined. Yet in responding to the challenge of mass politics, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East have not simply shown their resilience. In adapting to new challenges they have also changed, giving rise to new and more troubling forms of authoritarian rule, suggesting that the turmoil of recent years may be only the beginning of an extended period of political instability, violence, and repression in many parts of the Middle East.

As part of the Arab Reform and Democracy Program's speaker series, Stanford Historian Joel Beinin discussed the role of workers in advancing revolutionary struggles in Egypt and Tunisia. Arab workers participated prominently in the popular uprisings of 2011. They shared the outrage of many of their compatriots over daily abuse by internal security forces, widespread corruption, and foreign policies subservient to U.S. interests. Their participation in those uprisings was also informed by struggles against the neoliberal economic restructuring of the region since the 1970s, which resulted in an indecent chasm between rich and poor, deteriorating working conditions and public social services, and high youth unemployment.

Egypt experienced a strike wave of unprecedented magnitude in the 2000s. Tunisia, with one exception, experienced less intense contestation by workers and others. Egyptian workers’ have had very limited influence on national politics in the post-Mubarak era. Democratic development seems unlikely in the near future. The Tunisian national trade union federation and its affiliates were the central force in installing procedural democracy. The nature of workers’ social movements in the 2000s partially explains these divergent outcomes.

Nick Deychakiwsky, program officer at the C.S. Mott Foundation, and Maurice Middleberg, executive director of Free the Slaves, engaged in a realistic, yet encouraging conversation on the fabric of NGOs for CDDRL's Program on Human Rights’ Winter Speaker Series “U.S. Human Rights NGOs and International Human Rights” on January 14, 2015.

Deychakiwsky gave the audience the macro perspective to NGOs working in human rights, while Middleberg, working on a specific mission to end modern day slavery, provided the micro perspective. Both Deychakiwsky and Middleberg pronounced the complications and challenges of working for and running an NGO today, narrating a cautionary yet motivating story of NGO management. Deychakiwsky pointed out that all too often, accountability to the society whose projects are designed to help gets lost in the bigger picture of NGO management. He emphasized that to have a positive impact, an NGO must remain mindful of and true to its core values and organizational mission. Middleberg agreed with Deychakiwsky’s view that an organization must always stay true to its mission, while at the same time emphasized that an NGO must nurture its own financial health and organizational culture in order to have the capacity for safekeeping its mission.  

Helen Stacy, director of the Program on Human Rights, was struck by the overlap in Deychakiwsky and Middleberg’s stances on NGO management. Stacy questioned Deychakiwsky about indicators for testing local accountability, and Deychakiwsky pointed out that when a community is willing to offer resources such as time or money, that it is a very strong indication that the project will succeed. Stacy probed Middleberg on his theory of change, asking whether there is an overemphasis of “head” (organizational management) over “heart” (organizational mission). Middleberg asserted that the head and heart of an organization are not in contradiction, but that the head has to be “squared off” in order for the organization to not lose its heart. When asked about NGO competition, both Middleberg and Deychakiwsky believe that there need to be fewer emerging NGOs, and more partnerships and mergers between those that currently exist. Questions from the audience included the resources required for theory of change, the need and ability to stay true to one’s mission, and the systems in place to test and measure change.  

Dana Phelps, Program Associate, Program on Human Rights