To be fair, I think the organisers are mostly to blame here.
The linked article states "certain invited speakers and participants remain subject to pending administrative and security clearances, which have not yet been concluded".
I have friends who organise conferences as a $dayjob, including in countries where political and government clearances are required for conferences attended by speakers and participants from external countries.
These clearances are typically required for BOTH the event AND each foreigner individually (and the foreigner will often be unable to even apply for, let alone obtain their visa until they have the clearance).
Lets just say that organising a Human Rights Conference in such a country would probably not be the smartest idea in the world.
Even for an uncontroversial conference, the clearance process is excruciatingly painful. I dread to think what it would entail for a Human Rights conference !
They took the risk. It didn't pay off.
Hope they had solid events insurance to cover all the costs.
One also has to wonder how much local and non-local political interference was involved as well, considering most speakers were unlikely to support the 'status quo'.
> One also has to wonder how much local and non-local political interference was involved as well
Most likely very little. To clearly re-iterate the point I made above ...
1. this is a country which requires political and government clearance for events; and
2. they wanted to host a Human Rights conference
1 + 2 = They were lining themselves up for failure from Day Zero. It was merely a case of when, not if.
If there was any "interference", that would merely be icing on the cake.
With a conference topic like that, both they and their international speakers would have been enduring tons of perfectly standard bureaucracy and paperwork whilst government departments trawled through people's LinkedIns and social media ... all standard stuff, none of which would be related to "interference".
The bottom-line reality is they should have hosted it in a country that did not require clearance.
I feel like they should've been constantly wary about something like this happening and had fallback plans. Maybe just keep the entire thing an online event; sure online may not have the same kick as in person, but at least there wouldn't ever be a bunch of people with travel arrangements in limbo.
First, read what I already said up-thread. The organisers clearly took a risk, it didn't pay off. If they did not understand the risk they were taking on, that's on them.
Second, Google the agreement referred to in that Twitter post. It was a standard China Belt and Road Financing thing, so super common in Africa that it's barely news.
I really don't think you seriously can pin the Chinese theory on this one.
Who would have to be threatened so much to cancel this? Even if it is canceled it does not mean that those who were going still can't meet and discuss things.
'Oh its canceled, well shit.. guess we can't do ANYTHING now.'
> Who would have to be threatened so much to cancel this?
What?
The government of the host country said some of the themes were potentially at odds with their national policy, and they weren't sure they liked some of the people involved.
That doesn't sound like anyone was threatened, it sounds like they should have picked somewhere with a stronger tradition of free dialogue.
You said; "it sounds like they should have picked somewhere with a stronger tradition of free dialogue."
Where would that be in today's world? Within the past decade, nearly every country in the world has overtly attacked digital freedoms. Can you name one country that has improved digital freedoms during the past decade?
It seems to me that this conference should be held online only, and hosted from an undisclosed location.
Most organizations don’t have the resources to let people travel without an actual event on the other end.
I could be wrong, but I suspect visas may be affected as well.
The organizers and attendees will try and coordinate something else. However, throwing something together on zoom, at such short notice is going to be a crap show.
The schedules wouldn’t survive unscathed, since speakers will start dropping out at this point.
If they do manage to get something together, they run the real risk of it being a rickety and frustrating event.
It's because people like you don't consider the indigenous people of Judea and Sumarea to be people, and you think it's OK to rape and murder them--as do the folks at "RightsCon"
https://archive.is/M0sjy
To be fair, I think the organisers are mostly to blame here.
The linked article states "certain invited speakers and participants remain subject to pending administrative and security clearances, which have not yet been concluded".
I have friends who organise conferences as a $dayjob, including in countries where political and government clearances are required for conferences attended by speakers and participants from external countries.
These clearances are typically required for BOTH the event AND each foreigner individually (and the foreigner will often be unable to even apply for, let alone obtain their visa until they have the clearance).
Lets just say that organising a Human Rights Conference in such a country would probably not be the smartest idea in the world.
Even for an uncontroversial conference, the clearance process is excruciatingly painful. I dread to think what it would entail for a Human Rights conference !
They took the risk. It didn't pay off.
Hope they had solid events insurance to cover all the costs.
One also has to wonder how much local and non-local political interference was involved as well, considering most speakers were unlikely to support the 'status quo'.
> One also has to wonder how much local and non-local political interference was involved as well
Most likely very little. To clearly re-iterate the point I made above ...
1 + 2 = They were lining themselves up for failure from Day Zero. It was merely a case of when, not if.If there was any "interference", that would merely be icing on the cake.
With a conference topic like that, both they and their international speakers would have been enduring tons of perfectly standard bureaucracy and paperwork whilst government departments trawled through people's LinkedIns and social media ... all standard stuff, none of which would be related to "interference".
The bottom-line reality is they should have hosted it in a country that did not require clearance.
I feel like they should've been constantly wary about something like this happening and had fallback plans. Maybe just keep the entire thing an online event; sure online may not have the same kick as in person, but at least there wouldn't ever be a bunch of people with travel arrangements in limbo.
Why the heck were they arranging it in a development country.
The organizers need a country that is resistant to both American and Chinese pressure. And has a decent record on human rights itself.
they should have held it in the US, a country entirely resistant to what Americans want, care about, and vote for.
They likely cancelled at the behest of China
https://x.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/2049683100565950937
> They likely cancelled at the behest of China
Look, I'm no defender of China but ....
First, read what I already said up-thread. The organisers clearly took a risk, it didn't pay off. If they did not understand the risk they were taking on, that's on them.
Second, Google the agreement referred to in that Twitter post. It was a standard China Belt and Road Financing thing, so super common in Africa that it's barely news.
I really don't think you seriously can pin the Chinese theory on this one.
[dead]
Or the USA.
The fact that both are equally likely tells you all you need to know about the current state of the USA.
Who would have to be threatened so much to cancel this? Even if it is canceled it does not mean that those who were going still can't meet and discuss things.
'Oh its canceled, well shit.. guess we can't do ANYTHING now.'
> Who would have to be threatened so much to cancel this?
What?
The government of the host country said some of the themes were potentially at odds with their national policy, and they weren't sure they liked some of the people involved.
That doesn't sound like anyone was threatened, it sounds like they should have picked somewhere with a stronger tradition of free dialogue.
You said; "it sounds like they should have picked somewhere with a stronger tradition of free dialogue."
Where would that be in today's world? Within the past decade, nearly every country in the world has overtly attacked digital freedoms. Can you name one country that has improved digital freedoms during the past decade?
It seems to me that this conference should be held online only, and hosted from an undisclosed location.
Most organizations don’t have the resources to let people travel without an actual event on the other end.
I could be wrong, but I suspect visas may be affected as well.
The organizers and attendees will try and coordinate something else. However, throwing something together on zoom, at such short notice is going to be a crap show.
The schedules wouldn’t survive unscathed, since speakers will start dropping out at this point.
If they do manage to get something together, they run the real risk of it being a rickety and frustrating event.
It's misleading to call "RightsCon" a "Human Rights Conference."
Why?
It may be because some folks do not consider Human Rights as Rights.
It's because people like you don't consider the indigenous people of Judea and Sumarea to be people, and you think it's OK to rape and murder them--as do the folks at "RightsCon"