Autocracy is not synonymous with totalitarianism, as this concept was precisely forged to distinguish modern regimes that appeared in the s from traditional dictatorships. It also isn't synonymous with military dictatorship , as these often take the form of "collective presidencies" see the South-American juntas. However, an autocracy may be totalitarian or be a military dictatorship.
The term monarchy differs in that it emphasizes the hereditary characteristic, though some Slavic monarchs see tsar traditionally included the title "autocrat" of part of their official styles.
The actual power of the monarch may be limited. However, an autocracy may be totalitarian or be a military dictatorship. The term monarchy also differs in that it emphasizes the hereditary characteristic, though some Slavic monarchs, specifically Russian Emperors traditionally included the title "autocrat" as part of their official styles.
The actual power of the monarch may be limited. Historically, many monarchs ruled autocratically see absolute monarchy but eventually their power was diminished and dissolved with the introduction of constitutions giving the people the power to make decisions for themselves through elected bodies of government.
Maldives voters rejected their autocratic president, Yameen Abdulla Gayoom. In Armenia, whose government was mired in corruption, Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan had to step down amid massive protests.
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis faced growing protests against his alleged corruption. Ethiopia, under popular pressure, replaced a long-abusive government with a new one led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who embarked on an impressive reform agenda. In many cases, the public led the resistance in the streets. New governments had to pick up the defense of human rights because several important governments faltered. President Trump preferred to embrace autocrats whom he viewed as friendly, even if parts of the US government often tried to work around the White House.
The British government, worried about Brexit, appeared willing to publicly advocate for human rights mainly in countries where British trade or commercial interests were limited. French President Emmanuel Macron defended democratic values rhetorically, but too often found reasons to avoid applying those principles when they implicated efforts to curb migration, fight terrorism, or secure commercial opportunities.
China and Russia did all they could to undermine global rights enforcement, while at home they imposed the most repressive rule in decades. Against this challenging backdrop, a critical mass of human rights supporters has regularly risen to the occasion. Yet President Trump was willing to jeopardize that in the name of weakening the council because it denounces such Israeli policies as the crippling closure of Gaza and the discriminatory and illegal settlement regime in the West Bank.
The Human Rights Council made major advances despite—and in one case arguably because of—the US absence. In response, the Human Rights Council, where there is no veto, stepped in to create a semi-prosecutorial investigative mechanism to preserve evidence, identify those responsible, and build cases for the day when a tribunal becomes available to judge these crimes.
That effort won overwhelmingly, with 35 in favor and only 3 against 7 abstained , sending the signal that these atrocities cannot be committed with impunity, even as senior leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the army continued to deny they occurred. And in what may be an alternative route to the International Criminal Court ICC that does not depend on the Security Council, the ICC prosecutor opened a preliminary examination into the alleged deportation of Rohingya from Myanmar, using for jurisdiction the fact that the crime was completed when the Rohingya were pushed into Bangladesh, an ICC member state.
Yet the Human Rights Council resolved to continue an international investigation started last year of war crimes in Yemen by a vote of 21 to 8 with 18 abstentions. A resolution, led by a group of Latin American nations, won by a vote of 23 to 7 with 17 abstentions. In addition, five Latin American governments and Canada urged the International Criminal Court to open an investigation of crimes in Venezuela—the first time that any governments have sought an ICC investigation of crimes that took place entirely outside their territory.
Other governments, including France and Germany, supported the move. A group of Latin American governments led by Argentina also organized in the context of the Human Rights Council the first joint statement, signed by 47 countries, on the worsening repression in Nicaragua, as President Daniel Ortega responded with violence to growing protests against his repressive rule.
Beyond the Human Rights Council, governments mounted important defenses of human rights in other venues as well. One was the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons OPCW , which had been empowered to determine in any given case only whether chemical weapons have been used, not who used them. Russia opposed empowering any international investigation to attribute responsibility, given its backing of and cover for the Syrian government as it repeatedly used chemical weapons, and its own apparent use of the Novichok nerve agent in an attempted assassination of a former spy in Britain.
The pushback came in an initiative led by France and Britain, over the opposition of Russia, which resulted in the member states of the OPCW voting 82 to 24 to grant it the mandate to begin identifying the users of chemical weapons.
A Russian effort to block funding for this new mandate was also rejected. Poland is the largest recipient of EU funds, and Hungary is among the largest per capita recipients. The investigation led to resignations, various penalties, and the introduction of new lobbying rules. The multilateral action that may have saved the most lives over the past year focused on Syria. Today, an estimated three million people live there, at least half of them displaced from elsewhere in Syria. But with Turkey having closed its border after having received 3.
The Kremlin held the keys to whether this feared slaughter of civilians proceeded because the Syrian military was incapable of sustaining an offensive without Russian aerial support. Intensive international pressure on the Russian government ultimately persuaded President Putin to agree with Turkish President Erdogan to a ceasefire in Idlib, beginning in September.
Whether that ceasefire fails, as others have, or holds remains to be seen at time of writing in early December, but its existence shows that even in as complicated a situation as wartime Syria, concerted pressure can save lives.
The Saudi government advanced a series of changing cover stories, each refuted with evidence released piece-by-piece by the Turkish government which continued to persecute its own journalists, activists, academics, and politicians who dared to criticize President Erdogan.
Gradually, the United States and Canada imposed targeted sanctions against many of the Saudis implicated in the murder. In Europe, Germany took the unprecedented step of barring 18 Saudi officials from entering the nation Schengen Zone, while Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland stopped arms sales to the kingdom. Many members of the US Congress from both parties—along with members of the US media and public—denounced this callous calculation. Pressure from a group of African states was key to finally persuading President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo to schedule elections for his successor.
Barred from seeking reelection by constitutional term limits yet reluctant to give up power, Kabila had deployed security forces to detain and even fire upon pro-democracy activists.
0コメント