Concerns Rise Over Peru’s Anti-NGO Law and Its Impact on Human Rights
Peru has enacted a controversial anti-NGO law that restricts civil society organizations from legal action against state human rights violations. This law is viewed as a threat to non-profit independence and a regression in civil rights. Critics, including human rights leaders, condemn the legislation, while the government under President Boluarte claims it promotes transparency and accountability in funding.
Human rights advocates in Peru have expressed serious concerns regarding a recently passed anti-NGO law that hampers civil society’s ability to seek legal redress against state-sponsored human rights violations. This legislation, rapidly approved by the unpopular Peruvian congress with an 81 to 16 vote on Wednesday, accelerates government oversight of NGOs, potentially diminishing their independence and effectiveness.
The new law expands the powers of the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) over international assistance, a move that critics argue jeopardizes the autonomy of non-profits. This legislative shift is perceived as part of a broader governmental trend to erode civil liberties and press freedoms, prompting international scrutiny of Peru’s political landscape, where both President Dina Boluarte and the congress have approval ratings below 5%.
Backers of the legislation claim that it enhances oversight and promotes transparency in funding for civil society organizations. Lawmaker Alejandro Aguinaga, a member of the rightwing Fuerza Popular party, voiced allegations that NGOs exploit foreign cooperation for personal gain at the expense of impoverished Peruvians.
Carlos Rivera, director of the Legal Defense Institute, branded the law as “simply brutal,” indicating its catastrophic potential for legal aid to victims of human rights abuses, most of whom rely on NGOs for assistance. He highlighted a severe penalty within the law, imposing fines up to $500,000 on NGOs litigating or supporting legal actions against the government.
Rivera compared the law’s implications to past unconstitutionality, referencing the 1995 amnesty laws that shielded military and police personnel from accountability regarding human rights violations during Peru’s internal conflict. These preceding laws were ultimately annulled for conflicting with fundamental justice rights and international human rights norms.
Julia Urrunaga, director of the Environmental Investigation Agency in Peru, firmly stated that claims of NGO irresponsibility are unfounded, asserting that they have long adhered to similar regulations as any other societal entity. She criticized the law for obstructing civil society’s independence in advocating for human rights.
The regional organization for Amazon Indigenous people, Orpio, condemned the law as a regressive measure detrimental to their fundamental rights and accessibility to justice. Given Peru’s troubled history of military rule and political strife, NGOs have been crucial for national progress and human rights advocacy.
Despite the significance of civil society, the ultra-conservative elements in Peru have framed USAid support as politically motivated. This narrative gained traction after former President Donald Trump ceased a majority of USAid initiatives in February. President Boluarte further advanced this narrative, cautioning against the utilization of human rights rhetoric as a tool to undermine state authority and stability.
Currently, Boluarte is undergoing scrutiny concerning her alleged involvement in the deaths of nearly 50 individuals during anti-government protests, along with claims of accepting bribes. She has denied these allegations.
In conclusion, the recent anti-NGO legislation in Peru raises critical alarms about the future of civil society and human rights advocacy in the nation. The law not only restricts NGOs from pursuing legal challenges against the government but also threatens their operational independence. As global scrutiny mounts, it remains essential to monitor the implications of this legislation on vulnerable populations and the overall integrity of Peru’s democracy.
Original Source: www.theguardian.com
