2011 NEWS STORIES OF THE YEAR AND ONES TO WATCH IN 2012

Today, 1worldinternational compiles and publishes its list of the most newsworthy stories of 2011 and predictions of 2012’s expected headlines. In no particular order, the following countries provided 2011’s most newsworthy stories:

1. Tunisia – The country held its first elections following the end of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali’s twenty something year rule. Many forget that the wind of change generated by the Arab spring emanated from the self immolation of Tunisia’s Mohamed Bouazizi.

2. South Sudan – The country became the 193rd state party to the UN Charter following a referendum in which 99% voted in favour of secession from Sudan.

3. Egypt – 2011 saw the end of the reign of Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian 30-year rule. Mr Mubarak is at present facing trial for charges of murder which carries the death penalty if found guilty.

4. Libya – The UN Security Council Resolution 1973 brought Muammar Gaddafi’s 42 year rule to an end. Unfortunately Colonel Gaddafi did not live long enough to face the law before the Courts as he met his death in what can best be described as mysterious circumstances.

5. Cote d’Ivoire – Troops loyal to the incumbent President Alassane Ouattara overpowered rival forces led by Laurent Gbagbo following a disputed election reportedly won by the former. Mr Gbagbo will face the International Criminal Court (ICC) next year.

6. Serbia – Europe’s most wanted man and Bosnian Serb, Ratko Mladic, was finally captured after years of being on the run. The phrase ‘justice delayed is not justice denied’ could not be more apt on this occasion.

7. Afghanistan – The al-Qaeda figurehead, Osama bin Laden was shot dead by American troops in Pakistan. The al-Qaeda leader was said to have been a resident of Pakistan for a while. The violence still continues thus disproving the belief that the most effective way of killing a snake is by chopping its head off.

8. Palestine – With Mahmoud Abbas at the helm furthering its cause, Palestine was granted full membership of UNESCO although his quest for independence at the UN Security Council was unsuccessful. Mr Abbas is likely to say that the UNESCO endorsement is a step further towards its goal of full recognition as a nation.

9. Yemen – Like his Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian counterparts, the Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh’s 33-year reign came to an end in 2012. Under an agreement drafted by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Mr Saleh will formally step down from power in February/March of 2012.

10. Saudi Arabia – The unthinkable happened when King Abdullah decreed that women would for the first time have the right to vote and run in local elections from 2015.


ONES TO WATCH IN 2012

1. Afghanistan – Following President Barack Obama’s declaration, it is expected that the 33,000 US troops in Afghanistan will leave the country by mid -2012. With the level of violence being experienced by the country from insurgents at this time, President Obama may need to re-evaluate this move.

2. South Sudan – Latest clashes between the world’s newest country and its neighbour, Sudan, has the potential to escalate into a full blown conflict. Watch this space as they say.

3. Russia – Prime Minister Putin and yours truly never thought the day would come when protesters would defy threats of intimidation and the authorities to voice their displeasure over alleged rigged elections in the country. It remains to be seen whether the protests will lead to a rerun of the disputed elections or even, be the precursor to the end of Mr Putin’s presidential bid.

4. Iran – The country’s burgeoning nuclear ambitions have been frowned upon by the likes of Britain, USA and Israel. The proclamations of the Ayatollah and President Ahmedinejad have certainly not helped matters. With recent murmurings of Israeli and US joint military action, one fears we have not heard the last of this one.

5. North Korea – Kim Jong Un was named Supreme Commander following the death of his father Kim Jong Il earlier this month. Observers hope that a new course of action will be taken by the new leader in terms of its relationship with the international community. Kim Jong Un’s recent warning to South Korea and its allies that there will be no change in policy perhaps extinguishes the aforementioned hope.

6. Congo – Joseph Kabila’s disputed election victory in December 2011 led to violence, looting and destruction in this already conflict-ridden country. One of his opponents during the elections, Etienne Tshisekedi rejected the election results and proceeded to swear himself in as President. At present, there is no indication of any dialogue taking place between the parties; therefore one can only predict a continuation of the topsy turvy state of affairs which the country is now used to.

7. Iraq – 39,000 US troops were withdrawn this year after a 9-year campaign in the country which saw the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. There are real fears of sectarian violence and political impasse following the withdrawal.

8. The Middle East – Palestine, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. Needless to say, there will be numerous newsworthy articles emanating from this region of the world as has always been the case.

9. China – Like Russia, few would have thought that protesters would be able to summon up courage to voice their distaste for the country’s ruling party and the endemic corruption prevalent in the nation. Will the Arab Spring spread to the Far East? One doubts it though one would have had to be a prophet to predict the downfalls of Gaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali and Saleh in 2011.

10. Yemen – Mr Saleh’s agreed handover date of February/March 2012 steadily approaches although this has not provided much delight to Yemenis as Mr Saleh has in the past reneged on promises made to leave power. The world watches with bated breath.

INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION FOR BOKO HARAM'S CHRISTMAS DAY ATTACKS IN NIGERIA

On 11th December 2011, 1worldinternational published a piece on Boko Haram, the terrorist group with Nigerian origins which has over the last few years masterminded attacks against the Nigerian government, public infrastructure, civilians and churches. In the article entitled “Boko Haram: The New Al-Qaeda?”, the writer highlighted the threat posed by the group. The article also covered fears raised by the U.S.A about the Nigerian government’s inability to deal with the insurgency and the prospect that the national problem may spiral into an international concern.


The Attacks

In a replication of its brazen series of attacks in Nigeria last Christmas, the group struck on 25th December 2011 in what appears to be a well thought out and coordinated attack leaving 40 dead and scores injured. The first attack occurred outside a Catholic Church situated near the capital city of Abuja, killing 35 and wounding around 50. It is reported that this was a suicide attack on worshippers milling around the church premises following the conclusion of the Christmas morning mass. The second blast occurred close to a church in the central city of Jos and further explosions occurred in the North-East towns of Damaturu and Gadaka. The Associated Press reports that the recent fatalities bring the total death toll from the insurgency to 504 this year.


International Condemnation

The attacks have led to widespread condemnation being heaped upon the group. The U.K. Foreign Secretary, William Hague said: “These are cowardly attacks on families gathered in peace and praying to celebrate a day which symbolises harmony and goodwill towards others. I offer my condolences to the bereaved and injured.” In the same vein, the White House Spokesman, James Carney said: “We condemn this senseless violence and tragic loss of life on Christmas day. We offer our sincere condolences to the Nigerian people and especially those who lost family and loved ones”. Further support has also come from the French and German governments. The French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed “solidarity in Nigeria’s fight against terrorism” while the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle stated: “Even on Christmas day, the world is not spared from cowardice and the fear of terrorism.” The Vatican City also denounced the attacks in stating that the group’s action was an act of “blind hatred” seeking to “arouse and feed even more hatred and confusion”.


Sound-off

The group via its spokesman has claimed responsibility for the attacks. In its statement, the group said: “There will never be peace until our demands are met”. “We want all our brothers who have been incarcerated to be released; we want full implementation of the Sharia system and we want democracy and the constitution to be suspended.”

Analysts fear that the group has links to the al-Shabaab militia which controls large swathes of Somalia and al-Qaeda operatives with influence in the African states of Niger, Mauritania, and Chad to name but a few. Matters are not been helped by the Nigerian government who seem reluctant to acknowledge the threat posed by the group to the nation’s security and stability or the government’s hesitance to accept the assistance offered by the international community. The frayed dynamics of this already fractious country coupled with the latest insurgency leads observers to conclude that Nigeria may soon become West Africa’s equivalent to East Africa’s Somalia.

RENEWED CLASHES IN YEMEN LEAD TO FEARS OF FURTHER MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY

The recent renewal of hostilities between forces loyal to the President of Yemen, Mr Ali Abdullah Saleh and demonstrators protesting against the government have led to fears of further instability in this already fragile region of the world. The clashes on 24th and 25th December led to the deaths of 9 people and saw dozens injured by government security forces who opened fire on demonstrators in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. The government attacks were said to have been led by military units overseen by the nephew and son of Mr Saleh. The recent deaths add to the unofficial figures of hundreds and thousands of people who have been killed and injured respectively in clashes in the major cities of Sanaa, Taiz and Aden since protests began in January 2011.


History

The first rays of the Arab spring hit Yemen on 27th January 2011 when protesters took to the streets and other cities in the Southern cities of the country demanding an end to President Saleh’s 33 year reign. The interceding months have seen a state of emergency been imposed in the country and the defection of senior army officials. In April, President Saleh was injured in an attack on his presidential compound forcing him to leave the country temporarily to seek treatment in Saudi Arabia.


The Deal

Following Mr Saleh’s return to the country on 23rd September 2011, the 6 Arab countries which make up the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) and the UN brokered a deal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia which amongst others entailed that Mr Saleh was to relinquish power 3 months after agreeing the deal. The agreement was signed on 23rd November 2011.


Terms of the Deal

• Vice-President, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi will form a power-sharing government within 14 days of signature of the deal.
• The opposition coalition will nominate a Prime Minister.
• The Vice-President will negotiate the demilitarisation of the city of Sanaa.
• President Saleh will relinquish full control in early February 2012, 90 days after signing the deal.
• The Vice-President will be elected President and oversee constitutional and parliamentary reforms.
• President Saleh and his allies will have immunity from prosecution.


Latest Clashes

The deal was expected to usher in a period of stability following the year-long episode of skirmishes and violence which has seen hundreds killed. The latest clashes appear to have resulted from fears that President Saleh will renege on the agreement to step down from power as was the case in June 2011. The protesters have also demanded that the acting leader and the country’s former Vice-President, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who is seen as the puppet of the outgoing leader, should resign. The protesters have also voiced concerns about the fact that the agreement, the terms of which have been covered above, entitles Mr Saleh to immunity from prosecution. The protesters have called for the immunity to be revoked.


Saleh’s vows to leave

In the aftermath of the latest clashes, Mr Saleh has been forced to publicly deny any intentions of reneging on the deal. Mr Saleh stated: “I will go to the USA not for treatment, because I’m fine, but to get away from attention, cameras, and allow the unity government to prepare properly for elections”. He added: “I’ll be there for several days, but I’ll return because I won’t leave my people and comrades who have been steadfast for 11 months,” he said. “I’ll withdraw from political work and go into the street as part of the opposition.” Mr Saleh also urged the country’s neighbours to assist Yemenis in establishing law and order in the country. Mr Saleh continued: “An unstable Yemen means an unstable region. So protect the security, unity and stability of Yemen. Neighbour states, its security is yours.”


Fears of civil strife

The latest skirmishes are the last thing the Arab world’s poorest nation needs at this time, not least because it is bedevilled with other problems relating to poverty, high unemployment rates, soaring food prices, oil and water scarcity issues. Added to these is sectarian violence between fighters within the Shia and Sunni communities and attacks against the government by fighters linked to al-Qaeda. Issues are also complicated by a rebellion by militants from the southern part of the country seeking the reestablishment of their own nation which existed pre-unification in 1990.


Sound-off

Yemen is of strategic importance for several reasons, namely its geographical proximity to the gulf’s major oil fields and major shipping lanes in the Arabian and Red seas. It has also been instrumental in providing a base in the west’s fight against al-Qaeda. Recent clashes will not only affect these but will also lead to a flood of refugees and further instability in a region still recovering from the aftershocks caused by the Arab world’s recent awakening. Mr Saleh’s planned February/March 2012 exit is to be watched closely. Needless to say, the seed of political impasse planted by Mr Saleh and his affiliates will swiftly germinate into civil war if he fails to follow through on his promise to leave as agreed.

CONGO: ON THE BRINK

It perhaps came as no surprise to global affairs observers when the Supreme Court of the Democratic Republic of Congo on Friday, 16th December 2011, confirmed the victory of the incumbent President Joseph Kabila following recent elections in the country.


Democratic Elections

The election of 28th November 2011 was the country’s second democratic elections in forty years. The first democratic election was held in 2006 and ushered in the presidency of Joseph Kabila. On that occasion, Joseph Kabila won a run-off poll having amassed 58% of the votes. However Mr. Kabila has been in charge since 2001 following the assassination of his Father, Laurent Kabila in the same year.


Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court President Jerome Kitoko rejected a challenge by the opposition to annul the election results and declared Mr Kabila winner with 48.95% of the votes. Mr Kabila’s main challengers Etienne Tshisekedi and Vital Kamerhe polled 32% and 7% respectively. Following the elections, Mr Tshisekedi voiced strongly his disapproval with what he thought was a flawed election process and has since proceeded to declare himself president. Mr Kamerhe on the other hand has indicated that he would mount a challenge against the results by way of court action.


Flawed Elections

International observers who followed the elections with eagle eyes trained on the electoral process have also loudly voiced their disapprovals with the election results. Following the publication of the results, the US State Department stated that the elections were “seriously flawed”. The US Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo, James Entwistle proferred: “The US believes that the management and technical execution of these elections were seriously flawed”. The European Union (EU) also buttressed this assertion in adding that the election process was “chaotic”. The group of 26 teams of observers dispatched by the non-profit US based Carter Centre to monitor the elections also concluded that the results “lack credibility”.


Support for Kabila

Mr Kabila will however take heart from the fact that the African Union (AU), led by one of Africa’s numerous dictators, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of the Equatorial Guinea, concluded that the polls were “successful”. Leaders from Africa's Great Lakes region have also voiced support for President Joseph Kabila following the disputed poll results and urged Mr Kabila’s opponents to accept the result. Leaders from Burundi, Central African Republic, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia attended the meeting. In its statement to the press following the end of the two-day International Conference on the Great Lakes Region summit in Kampala, Uganda, the group congratulated the president of DRC on his re-election and urged “those not satisfied with the election results to accept them and work towards building the country".


Post-Election Violence

Prior to the elections, it was feared that civil unrest would result following its conclusion due to simmering tensions in the country. As expected, post election violence has unfortunately marred the ‘victory’ of Joseph Kabila. It has been reported that civilians have been killed in the aftermath, neighbourhoods set on fire, roads and public infrastructure have been destroyed, looting and a total breakdown of law and order is also widespread. Europe has also not emerged unscathed from the recent events in central Africa. It was reported last week that police in London were called upon to quell riots in the city sparked by protesters challenging the results of the elections. Scotland Yard reported that a total of 139 arrests were made in connection with offences including criminal violence, violent disorder and affray.


On the Brink of Civil War

Recent events are a setback to a nation which has been trapped in the vortex of conflict for decades which has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4 million people. The end of the civil war in 2003 was expected to usher in a period of stability unknown to a large number of the population. Africa’s second largest country and the world’s twelfth largest country seems on the brink of a return to civil unrest and further bloodshed. It goes without saying that the country has been failed by its previous leaders. One wishes that its current leaders can steer the country towards a different path, but recent events seem to indicate that its previous and current leaders are cut from the same cloth. 1worldinternational certainly hopes that Laurent Kabila, Mr Kabila’s inner circle and the opposition leaders can prove us wrong.

BOKO HARAM: THE NEW AL-QAEDA?

The recent report presented to the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security by the Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence titled “Boko Haram: Emerging Threat to the US Homeland” highlights the increasing danger to national and international security which the Nigerian terror group now poses. The report chaired by Patrick Meehan, Chairman of the US Congressional Committee, declared that Boko Haram has “quickly evolved and poses an emerging threat to US interests and the US homeland”.

Alarmingly, the report acknowledged the potential link between Boko Haram and al-Qaeda which has previously been suspected by observers. It stated: “Boko Haram has the intent and may be developing capability to co-ordinate on a rhetorical and operational level” with al-Qaeda which is active in Africa, including in Algeria, Mali, Niger and Somalia. One notes that al-Shabab, the militant group with very close links to al-Qaeda has been engaged in a long-running conflict with the Somali government.


Who are Boko Haram?

Boko Haram is an Islamic organisation which was formed in 2002 with the aim of establishing an Islamic state in Northern Nigeria as it considers the present government unislamic and one which is run by unbelievers. The group is headquartered in the North-Eastern Nigerian city of Maiduguri and its official name of Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, translates as “people committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad.”

The group has been responsible for attacks on government buildings, churches, public infrastructure and police buildings which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people in the country although the death toll may surpass that presented in official figures. The profile of the group was previously restricted to the country’s populace; however that changed on 26th August 2011 when it orchestrated a bold suicide-bomb attack on the UN Headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s capital city, killing about 24 people. The group was also blamed for an attack in the Nigerian North-Eastern town of Damaturu which resulted in the deaths of dozens of people.


The Report’s Aims

It has been stated by those involved in producing the report that the US would take positive action in addressing the threat posed by Boko Haram so as to avoid a repeat of its intelligence services initial underestimation of militant groups such as al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network which is based in Pakistan. The report’s authors highlight the need for swift action in dealing with Boko Haram in stating: “If the US acts quickly on the military, intelligence and diplomatic fronts, it can ensure the relative protection of US interests while assisting the Nigerian government in containing Boko Haram.” The Nigerian government’s security forces have so far been unable to contain the threat posed by Boko Haram despite the deployment of a substantial number of military personnel to the Northern region of the country. Observers of recent events will not fail to have noticed recent comments made by President Goodluck Jonathan that the government intends to commence negotiations with the group.


Opposition to the Change in Government’s Tactics

This latest move, namely engaging in dialogue with the group, has however been met with the discerning cries of critics, not least that of the influential Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). In the keynote speech delivered by its President, Chief J.B. Daudu, at an event held last week – Human Rights National Security: The Challenges of Terrorism and Response of Law Enforcement Agencies in Nigeria – the NBA highlighted that any meetings between the government and Boko Haram may have the unwanted effect of sending a message to like-minded groups that the government only listens in the face of intimidation and terror. The NBA National President stressed: “The danger is not in the fact that negotiation on its own is not good but that (i) you are dealing with bounty-hunters and other opportunists and (ii) such meetings may send the signal to like-minded people prone to engage in similar acts that the government only listens when you intimidate and resort to terror.”


Recommendations of the Report

Despite the valid criticism, one can understand the change in tactic of the government. Certainly the deployment of military forces has not borne fruit and one can argue that the government is only taking a leaf out of the US and NATO book as both have proceeded to engage the Taliban in dialogue after 10 or so fruitless years of military warfare. It remains to be seen whether dialogue will prevent the further escalation of hostilities in a country of 150 million where poverty, corruption and insecurity are rife. The US and the Nigerian government will also do well to implement the recommendations contained in the report. Central to these were closer liaison between US Intelligence agencies and Nigerian security services, and increased US support for programmes which enhance the ability of Nigerian forces to target and counter Boko Haram attacks. Whatever one’s views on probable solutions to this issue, global security analysts will however welcome the fact that lessons have been learnt from the failure of the international community to tackle al-Qaeda in its infancy before it morphed into a full grown adult capable of carrying out attacks on the scale of 9/11.

PART 2:- HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: AN EVALUATION OF THE CASE FOR THE FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

1worldinternational presents the concluding part of its analysis on humanitarian intervention. The examination has sought to investigate the legality of the concept of 'humanitarian intervention' and whether it is recognised by the UN Charter. We also sought to ascertain whether such action can only be sanctioned by the UN and also to examine the legality of military action triggered by one or more states acting in tandem where mass crimes are being perpetrated by a third state. One wishes that there was enough time to explore this topic in more depth; however, we hope to cover this matter extensively in the future therefore please watch this space.
.................................................................................................................................
ii. Humanitarian intervention brought about by disruption to democracy

It may also be argued that disruption to democracy which results in a humanitarian crisis could possibly constitute a 'threat to peace and security'. The Security Council passed two resolutions - 217(1965) and 221(1966) - by which an internal situation which was established by the white, racist, minority regime was declared as the existence of a 'threat to peace'. This evidence could be said to imply that the Security Council outlaws illegitimate and anti-democratic governments and their existence constitutes a 'threat to the peace'. Resolution 940(1994) authorising Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti legitimised the use of force in support of democracy. The Council recognised the potential of a humanitarian crisis following the overthrow of the democratic government led by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide which resulted in the exodus of Haitians seeking refuge in neighbouring member states and the recognition by the UN of the existence of a potential 'threat to peace and security in the region'.

The Council consequently passed a resolution authorising a multinational force to use "all necessary means to facilitate the departure from Haiti of the military leadership…the prompt return of the legitimately elected President and the restoration of the legitimate authorities of the Government". Certainly, ‘the climate of fear of persecution, economic dislocation and humanitarian crisis’ recognised by resolution 841(1993) in terms of the Haiti situation is comparable to the present situation in Syria, and potentially constitutes a threat to international peace and security in the region were it to continue.


THE ABSENCE OF A CONSENSUS ON THE CONCEPT OF ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’

The various attempts to justify a right to humanitarian intervention based on customary international law provides an uncertain basis for claims and is at present still subject to general consensus. The International Court of Justice’s position in the Nicaragua case explicitly indicated no such support for a customary international law right of humanitarian intervention. Responding to the United States’ claim, it stated: “While the United States might form its own appraisal of the situation as to the respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of force could not be an appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect…the court concludes that the argument derived from the preservation of human rights in Nicaragua cannot afford legal justification for the conduct of the United States".

The Court in the Nicaragua case also outlined the criteria for the formation of new rules of customary international law asserting, “either the states taking such action or other states in a position to react to it must have behaved so that their conduct is evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a new rule of law requiring it". The Court therefore found that this line of reasoning, that is one in which most countries believed in the existence of a right to intervene where mass crimes are being perpetrated, was not only redundant, but also could not justify the intervention of the US in the internal affairs of another country. In this context, the assertion of the illegality of NATO’s actions in the Security Council by various countries, the reservations made again regarding the illegality of NATO’s action at the thirteenth meeting of the Human Rights Commission and the condemnation of all military actions outside the UN Charter framework without authorisation by the Security Council expressed in the final document issued at the 8th Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement clearly do not support the use of force beyond Charter purposes.

It is also argued that the scope of a customary international right of humanitarian intervention opens doors to ‘self-serving formulations’ that may assert that illegal acts are consistent with the rule of law as states may intervene on the pretext of such principle. It is therefore unsurprising that a majority of interventions based on humanitarian grounds such as the United State’s incursions in Grenada and Panama have been disclaimed by the international community. Significantly, the International Court of Justice was also unwilling to recognise the possibility that every state has a responsibility (termed erga omnes obligations) to resort to countermeasures involving the use of force if another state is engaging in grave breaches of fundamental obligations. In this regard the Court stated: "the acts of which Nicaragua was accused could not justify countermeasures taken by a third state, the United States, and particularly could not justify intervention involving the use of force". This authoritative assertion seems to categorically preclude the existence of a right to ‘humanitarian intervention’, which permits a state or group of states intervening where mass crimes exist without UN authorisation.


CONCLUDING REMARKS

To conclude, the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in view of the Kosovo intervention surmised: "there are times when use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace...under the Charter, the security council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, therefore the council should be involved in any decision to resort to the use of force". The nature of the Security Council's power under Chapter VII will be invoked if regimes are deemed a threat to peace. It is unlikely here that disruption to democracy will constitute sufficient grounds for intervention in for example, Burma as it lacks the 'humanitarian' element present in Haiti and Sierra Leone. However, the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Sudan provides a probable ground for intervention, buttressed by the existence of internal conflicts in both countries. Attempts have also been made to construe the protection of human rights as compatible with a customary international law right of humanitarian intervention. The acceptance of such a right would legitimise recourse to the use of force by a state or group of states on the basis of humanitarian intervention when necessity prevails.

However, firm evidence of global opinion is still yet to emerge. Further, it is of note that none of the existing international courts decisions have explicitly legitimised such interventions. Most notably, General Assembly resolutions and declarations as to intervention on humanitarian grounds and importantly the reluctance of NATO members to give detailed arguments pertaining the lawfulness of the intervention is perhaps evidence of widespread opposition to the rule. Also, while contemporary international law suggests that some breaches of international law could entail enforcement by states as whole, international legal instruments such as the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility and the UN commissioned Responsibility to Protect report which seems to accommodate the prospect of collective security action albeit expressly excluding countermeasures. Therefore while the UN’s staggered response to repressive regimes where necessity is required such as in Rwanda and latterly in Bahrain and Syria where grave violation of human rights persist has been subject to criticism, Security Council action still seems to constitute the sole legal basis for the removal of such regimes.

PART 1:- HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: AN EVALUATION OF THE CASE FOR THE FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

While the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ was not explicitly recognised and addressed by the United Nations Charter, some have argued that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security, to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide, breaches of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric.

This article therefore intends to examine in some detail whether contemporary international law imposes a duty on states to intervene in a third state such as Syria where mass crimes including crimes against humanity or war crimes et al are being perpetrated, although within the confines of the United Nations legal regime. The article will address this matter over two parts with the concluding part published next week.

..................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION

The UN General Assembly on the legality of intervention once recognised that: "No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of any other states...all forms of interference or threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic or cultural elements are in violation of international law”. It is said that signatories to the UN Charter have delegated their right to unilateral enforcement to the UN, save on the grounds of self-defence where states are allowed to respond to the attack in the circumstances. The Security Council is thus endowed with the responsibility of undertaking executive action in order to prevent, punish a threat to or breach of the peace or act of aggression. The difficulty in ascertaining when an armed conflict constitutes or potentially constitutes a 'threat to peace and security' within the meaning of the Charter is readily apparent in many episodes that have confronted the international community since the adoption of the Charter. In the context of humanitarian intervention, the United States relied on this argument on numerous occasions over the years, most notably in Grenada and Panama. Although some identify a gradual evolution of customary international law permitting intervention by states in the event of humanitarian catastrophe, the Charter's text will undoubtedly be compromised in that event. Against this background, while the removal of, for example, the Syrian regime might be noble and ethical its legality will however be uncertain.


THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON THE USE OF FORCE

Article 51 of the UN Charter which confers on individual states an 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence' and Security Council authorised enforcement actions under Chapter VII constitute the only exceptions to Article 2(4) which prohibits 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations'. The Security Council is accorded primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and pursuant to Article 34 may investigate any dispute which might endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the Council may take any action including the use of armed force 'as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security'. A determination of a threat to peace or breach of the peace made by the Security Council in response to the situations in for example, Syria or Sudan, will serve as a legitimate trigger for Chapter VII enforcement action circumventing the domestic jurisdiction clause of Article 2(7). Nevertheless, a more fundamental difficulty however will be establishing the existence of elements such as humanitarian crises or a disruption to democracy in Syria which have served as a precursor to intervention in the past, most notably in Somalia and Haiti.


THE CONCEPT OF ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’

i. Humanitarian intervention brought about by human rights abuses

It is increasingly being accepted that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security (envisaged as collective response to armed attack), to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide and other gross violations of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric. Humanitarian intervention was recognised in the Council's resolution which expressed demand for urgent response by the international community, determining that the magnitude of the humanitarian crises in Rwanda constituted a threat to international peace and security in the region. The Council authorised 'operations aimed at protecting displaced persons, refugees and civilians at risk, using 'all necessary means to achieve these humanitarian objectives'. Humanitarianism was reiterated in the text of Security Council resolution 688(1991) which expressed grave concern over 'the repression of Iraqi citizens leading to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross border incursions, which threaten international peace in the region', demanding Iraq to end the repression immediately. If the line of authority espoused in Iraq and Rwanda is to be followed, the displacement of a large amount of the population, who have fled Syria following the political crisis in the country, certainly presents an international crisis and consequently constitutes a 'breach of peace' which falls within the ambit of Article 39, thus requiring enforcement.


TO BE CONTINUED

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ASKS IRAN TO CLARIFY ITS NUCLEAR INTENTION

Perhaps the most predictable conclusion to a report was reached by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog in their summation that Iran had carried out tests “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”.

As a result, the IAEA passed a resolution stating its “deep and increasing concern” about Iran’s nuclear intentions. The resolution also requests Iran to proffer explanations which excludes the possibility of any intention to use its nuclear programme for military purposes. The IAEA however stopped short of referring the matter to the UN Security Council (UNSC).

The compromise resolution was agreed by countries including the US, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany. The resolution is seen by some observers as evidence that the nations significantly involved in the decision-making process of global affairs and matters have the capacity to reach a consensus against the background of the prevarication which have they have previously displayed where situations have called for co-operation by the ‘big 6’.

Cynics will however argue that this effectively ‘watered down’ resolution will do nothing to prevent Iran from continuing its uranium-enrichment programme. The possibility of the imposition of sanctions muted by some permanent members of the UNSC was scuppered by the reticence of Russian and China in voting in favour of the same. The Iranian government however continues to deny that its uranium nuclear-enrichment programme is “specific to nuclear weapons”. Iran’s envoy to the IAEA stated in the aftermath of the publication of the report that its conclusion was politically motivated and that its enrichment programme is geared towards the development of fuel for use in nuclear power stations.

Nevertheless the prospect of a pre-emptive strike by Israel looms large on the horizon. Word emanating from senior members of the Israeli government namely, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister, Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres indicates as such. Even if Iran is to be believed that its nuclear enrichment programme is not “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”, recent comments by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khameinei, pledging to “end the Jewish state” certainly do not help matters. As a postscript, 1worldinternational notes that Pakistan attained nuclear capacity in the not too distant past although its conflict with India has not escalated as some assumed.

However, in the present matter, one dreads the repercussions associated with Iran’s intention to attain nuclear capacity as it is inevitable that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will seek nuclear weaponry arguing that the threat of Iran necessitates such a measure. In view of the latest developments, 1worldinternational will urge its readers to watch this space.

UN ACCUSES SUDAN OF ASSAULT ON SOUTH SUDAN REFUGEES

At least a dozen people of South Sudanese origin were reported dead on 11th November 2011 following the latest wave of onslaught from Sudan government forces. This latest attack follows the spate of bombings carried out by Sudan armed forces near the border separating both countries a few days earlier on 8th November 2011.

Hilde Johnson, head of UNMISS (United Nations Mission in South Sudan) confirmed that 2 bombs landed inside the Yida refugee camp and 3 outside of it. The refugee camp which suffered the attacks shelters 20,000 people in the country’s Unity State and comprises largely of individuals fleeing violence in the Sudanese states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile.

These recent skirmishes have led to fears that Africa’s longest running civil war which ended following a 2005 peace deal may be reignited. It was hoped that the independence of South Sudan, gained after many years of conflict, on 9th July 2011, would usher in a period of long sought-after stability which the region has been stranger to for generations. However, disputes over the sharing of oil revenue, the oil-rich Abyei border region and ideological differences have made the prospect of peace somewhat distant.

The UN Under Secretary-General for peacekeeping operations, Herre Ladsous briefed the UN Security Council at the end of the past week about the latest attacks, specifically highlighting the role of the Sudanese armed forces in the violence. These sentiments were echoed by the UN Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, who has labelled the bombing of civilians an ‘international crime’ and called for an investigation into the bombing of the Yida refugee camp. The US has also voiced concerns over the safety of civilians and as a consequence has called for the cessation of hostilities in the region. “This bombing of civilians and humanitarian workers is an outrageous act, and those responsible must be held accountable for their actions”, said Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary in a statement to the press. He continued: “The US demands the government of Sudan to halt aerial bombardments immediately”.

The latest conflict has led to the withdrawal of the British aid agency, Oxfam from the upper Nile area of South Sudan. This move is a significant blow to the refugees in the area as Oxfam is the only provider of clean water for people displaced by violence. However, the Sudanese government’s representative to the UN, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman has denied any responsibility on the part of his government for the bombings and added that its actions are aimed at rebels operating in the region. In a statement, Mr Osman stressed that the government fully respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of South Sudan.

News of the latest attacks on civilians is no doubt troubling. Reputed press agencies, the Guardian and Voice of America recently reported findings by a US Satellite monitoring group which revealed that Sudan’s military was upgrading air bases near the border with South Sudan in order to enhance its air assault capacity. Observers worry that this is indicative of a clear intention by the government to launch a full scale aerial assault on its neighbours. President Omar al-Bashir’s government, which has been charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) over attacks on civilians in the Darfur region of the country, is spreading itself thin in terms of its military resources, not least because of its continued operation in the Darfur region of the country, which is in addition to the operations in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions of the country which are allegedly aimed at engaging armed rebels based in those regions.

The protection of civilians and refugees is paramount and one hopes that the UN carries out immediately the investigation called for by Navi Pillay, the organisation’s human rights chief. An opportunity was lost by the UN and the international community to check the obduracy of the Sudanese government during the course of the Darfur conflict. Lives depend upon positive action being taken by the UN in response to these latest series of incidents. The lives of these refugees are the UN’s business.

ARAB LEAGUE SHOWS LEADERSHIP OVER SYRIAN CRISIS

On 6th November 2011, 1worldinternational published a story titled Syria: The Unsolved Problem. In the article, we recommended that tougher measures are needed to be taken against the government of Syria over the human rights abuses committed in its attempts to stifle the voices of anti-government protesters.

1worldinternational called for the imposition of sanctions, the commissioning of a human rights observer mission in the country, greater involvement by the United Nations and the United States and the increased support of the opposition by the international community.

Heart-warmingly, the Arab League has avoided the show of ineptitude exhibited by the African Union in handling the Libyan crisis. It was announced this week that following the emergency session of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo, Syria’s membership of the organisation was to be suspended. In addition, sanctions were imposed against the government and opposition supporters have been invited to the Arab League headquarters in Cairo.

Perhaps the invitation of the opposition group may be an indication that the group, led by Burham Ghalian, may be a step closer to being recognised as the legitimate government of Syrian, thereby weakening the Assad regime rather significantly. Whether this ends the bloodshed remains to be seen. However, one can only applaud the brevity and courage shown by the Arab League in contrast with the prevarication and impotency displayed by the UN thus far.

SYRIA: THE UNSOLVED PROBLEM

On Saturday, November 5, the Reuters News Agency reported that clashes between Syrian government forces and protesters had resulted in the deaths of at least 5 civilians and injuries to dozens in the city of Homs. The continuing episodes of violence perpetrated by the Syrian government is starkly at odds with its promise to end attacks on protesters dissatisfied with President Bashar al-Assad’s administration over his failure to implement reforms in the country. The deaths on Saturday bring the total number of civilians killed since Tuesday to at least 82.

Followers of the Syrian uprising will recall that earlier in the week, President al-Assad’s government endorsed the five-point plan devised by the 22-nation Arab League which was aimed at bringing about a cessation of hostilities in the country. The peace plan in Cairo resulted in the following agreements being reached:-

• That there shall be an end to violence and killings
• That the Syrian government shall grant access to Arab and international media to monitor the situation.
• That the government shall release prisoners recently detained
• That the Damascus government shall remove all military equipment from Syrian cities
• That the government and opposition shall engage in dialogue within 2 weeks.

The Secretary-General of the Arab league, Nabil Elaraby fears that the violence which has resulted in the aftermath of the Arab League devised plan “would lead to catastrophic results for the situation in Syria and the region as a whole.” He added: “the Syrian government needs to take immediate steps to protect civilians.” Although the government has not released a press statement in defence of these latest actions, it is however inevitable that it will claim that its actions are aimed at Islamic militants and organised fighters as it has done in the past to justify its abhorrent use of force against civilians. The government’s attempts to crush protests around the country have led to the deaths of an estimated 3,000 people according to the United Nations.

Observers recall the sense of optimism which greeted President al-Assad’s assumption of leadership of the country and the ruling Baath party in 2000 following the iron-fisted 30-year rule of his father, Hafez al-Assad who spared no rod in quashing dissent. President al-Assad’s first deeds in power included sanctioning the release of political prisoners and easing media restrictions. However the air of change expected to have been ushered in by Assad junior never materialised, hence the 7-month long protests.

Following the failure of the Arab plan less than a week after its birth, stakeholders in the Middle East and the international community will surely be wracking their brains over the Syrian problem. There is certainly no appetite for NATO or international military action in the aftermath of the Libyan bombing raids undertaken by NATO. China and Russia, the latter with its significant business interests in Syria, namely arms sales, are likely to veto any moves for intervention in Syria as was the case early last month when they rejected a UN Security Council Resolution condemning the violence in Syria. To date, the US has taken a back seat in attempts to curb the violence with the sum total of its engagement being President Obama’s plea for President al-Assad to “step aside”. Any success in ensuring a stop to the violence in Syria will certainly require greater US and UN involvement.

It was hoped that the continued violence would result in the defection of Syrian Generals close to the president; however this has failed to happen, as such alternatives need to be considered. Therefore the UN approval of an observer mission and human rights monitors to operate in Syria in order to monitor and assess first-hand the claims and allegations of violence and human rights abuse by the Damascus government may yet be a proposal palatable to China and Russia who fear another Libya. To this end, the US and the other members of the Council must defuse the fears of the Russiana and Chinese by stressing that the observer mission is no prelude to the military action they fear may result if they agree to sanction a resolution regarding the Syrian problem.

In addition, the recently established Syrian National Council, a conglomerate of seven opposition groups akin to the Libyan National Transitional Council, was formed to create a singular voice for opponents of the Syrian government. Its Charter advocates press freedom, greater democracy, and political pluralism amongst others. The group led by Burham Ghalian, should be provided additional support and stronger backing, financial and otherwise by the international community. This backing will enable opponents to finance broadcasts, produce publications, and utilise social media in rallying opponents of the government. The backing will no doubt prop up and encourage the opposition in the face of attacks by the government.

Perhaps more effectively, sanctions and trade embargoes imposed by the UN, the EU, or Syria’s trade partners should be considered as they may be the most successful tool in bringing the government to its knees. The European Union ban on imports which commences in November will affect oil and gas export revenue, products which are said to account for a significant part of the Syrian government’s revenue. The ban is expected to deepen the Syrian economic crises which began following the government’s attempts to forcefully quell peaceful protests. Failing these, it is inevitable that the violence brought upon the Syrian people by its leaders will continue until the day the Chinese and Russians decide to put the interests of ordinary Syrians above that of its business interests.

ARGENTINA: JUSTICE DEFERRED IS NOT JUSTICE DENIED

Earlier this week in an Argentinean criminal court, Alfredo Ignacio Astiz, nicknamed the ‘Blonde Angel of Death’ for his famed good looks, was handed a life sentence for his part in the “dirty war”, the darkest period in the history of Argentina. Astiz was found guilty of crimes against humanity, torture, kidnapping and the facilitation of forced disappearances. The trial of Astiz brought to an end a 22-month trial which saw four of the accused handed 18-25 year sentences and 12 defendants sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.

The “dirty war” refers to the period of between 1976 and 1983 during which a military junta led by Jorge Videla and Reynaldo Bignone ruled Argentina. The military government came to power following the coup d’etat which saw the overthrow of Isabel Peron. During their rule, human rights groups estimate that about 30,000 people were killed or made to disappear by death squads in the government’s campaign to suppress dissent by opponents of the regime in the 70s and 80s. Astiz was also said to have been charged with responsibility for operating the torture centre, Escuela de Mecanica de la Armada or the Naval Mechanical School (ESMA) where political opponents of the government were imprisoned, tortured and in many cases killed.

Human Rights groups have also estimated that only about 200 people survived out of the 5000 prisoners held in ESMA. The most unsavoury methods of suppression employed by the government at the time included stealing babies from pregnant prisoners and giving them up for adoption to families who were supporters of the government, executing the biological mothers of these babies, executing dissidents by firing squads and throwing opponents into the Atlantic Ocean or the River Plate.

Until 2005, survivors and families of victims of the “dirty war” were denied justice as a result of an amnesty law adopted in 1987 to prevent a military rebellion after a return to civilian rule in 1983. However, the Argentinean Supreme Court reversed this in 2005 by repealing the amnesty following the recommendation of Nestor Kirchner, the former Head of State and late husband of the current President Cristina Fernandez. Since the revocation of the amnesty, several members of the top brass of the junta have been tried for abuse committed during that period. Former military Presidents Jorge Videla and Reynaldo Bignone were handed two life sentences and a 25 year sentence respectively for their roles in the atrocities.

The bringing to justice of the likes of Astiz and Videla would have been almost impossible to achieve without the unwavering determination of the Mothers and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo who have steadfastly campaigned in search of justice on behalf of their relatives for over three decades. The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo comprise a group of Argentine women human rights activists who are seeking reunification with their sons and daughters who were abducted by the military during their rule. The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo was founded in 1977 with the aim of locating stolen babies whose mothers were subsequently killed by the government in order to return them to their biological families.

The convictions of Astiz and his counterparts are significant as it sends an important message to dictators who have presided over regimes with appalling human rights credentials. This message being that whilst justice might be delayed by the exile of these individuals in safe havens, or the imposition of amnesty laws, justice eventually catches up with offenders as Astiz and Videla have discovered in Argentina and as Charles Taylor is currently finding out at his trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The outcome of the Argentinean prosecutions will not have escaped the attention of the Burmese, Zimbabwean and Syrian regimes who have also utilised measures favoured by Astiz and Co in order to suppress the peaceful voices of protests in their respective countries.

THE KENYAN INVASION OF SOMALIA: IS THIS TAKING SELF DEFENCE TOO FAR?

On Thursday of the past week, the Kenyan government confirmed that its troops had been sent into the territory of its neighbours, Somalia, in response to the recent spates of kidnappings allegedly perpetrated by the al-Shabab militia who operate out of Somalia.


The Kenyan Incursion

Al-Shabab, which is said to be strongly linked to al-Qaeda and who exercise control over Southern and central Somalia are blamed for the killing of Briton, David Tebutt and the abduction of his wife from a Kenyan resort, the killing of a French woman following her kidnap from her holiday home in Kenya and the kidnap of aid workers – Montserrat Serra and Blanca Thiebout – of Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) who were recently seized from a refugee camp at the Kenya-Somalia border. “The security of our country is paramount. We will defend our territorial integrity through all measures necessary to ensure peace and stability” stated Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki to the press on 20th October 2011. Mr Kibaki added that “all necessary measures” included military operation within and outside Kenya.


Legal Basis

The Kenyan government insist that the UN Charter legitimises its incursion into foreign territory. “These measures will involve invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter that pronounces self-defence as an inherent right and which is also keeping with the current Kenyan constitution,” said the Kenyan Minister for Internal Security, George Saitoti. The legal instrument referred to by Mr Saitoti, that is Article 51 of the UN Charter, provides that: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN.” In line with this provision, it would appear that Kenya is thus legally entitled to resort to force.


The Somalian Position

However, the Somalian position is acutely converse to the views espoused by the Kenyan government which justifies its operation on Somalian soil. Somalia’s envoy to the UN, Omar Jamal, has stated that the Kenyan incursion constituted a violation of its sovereignty. Mr Jamal stated: “There is a very serious concern from the Kenyan government that there have been some kidnappings in their country, but at the same time I think that to take the very unilateral action of going into Somali territory is a breach of international law.” In an interview, the contents of which was published in an article in The Independent on 17th October 2011, the Somalian Ambassador to Kenya, Mohammed Ali Nur, reiterated the views of Omar Jamal on what he perceives as a clear violation of its territory by Kenya. “As a sovereign country we cannot condone any country crossing our border…we will not allow any country to invade us.”


Self defence against non-State actors

Of course, every country has a right to defend itself against armed attacks and in this vein many will agree that the Kenyan government is entitled to take measures, military and otherwise in response. However, the issue of the legality of counter-measures adopted by Kenya is threatening to strain the relationship between the UN-backed Somalian transitional government and the Kenyan government. Unfortunately the text of the UN Charter fails to resolve the disagreement between the countries. The difficulty lies in the fact that the UN Charter was drawn up at a time when armed attacks by non-State actors against another State was a rarity, or perhaps not anticipated to constitute the problem which has achieved conundrum-like status. It was therefore left for case law, academics, UN resolutions and the International courts to attempt to purify the muddied waters. Importantly, Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), whilst considering the legality of the construction of a wall in occupied Palestinian territory, discussed the matter of whether Article 51 of the Charter recognises the existence of an inherent right to self defence in the case of an attack on a State by a non-State actor. Needless to say, the great opportunity which lent itself to these legal practitioners to clarify matters was squandered following disagreements over the interpretation of the said Article of the Charter.


Muddied waters

However, Resolution 1368 (2001) and Resolution 1373 (2001) which were adopted in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks both appear to acknowledge a right to respond to such attacks although there has been no resolution since then with similar wording or impact. If this is an endorsement of the above, then it would appear that the Kenyan government’s actions are legal under international law. However this assertion would also seem to suggest that Rwanda may legitimately attack Congo DRC for harbouring forces aligned with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) which threaten the Rwandan border, or that Uganda may be entitled to legitimately launch military action against Congo DRC for harbouring Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) which has waged a 20 year rebellion against the Ugandan government of President Yoweri Museveni. In addition, the prospect may also exist of a full blown conflict between the NATO-propped Afghanistan government and Pakistan over what the US perceive to be the Pakistani government’s support for al-Qaeda and the Haqqani militia who utilise Pakistani territory in making their forays into Afghanistan. In the earlier referred-to Congo DRC cases, the Congolese government seems to lack the capacity to expel, as is the case in Somalia, the terror groups from operating within its territory. Given the increasingly complex world in which we live in, it goes without saying that the immediate clarification of this issue is imperative if the current misunderstanding relating to the text and scope of Article 51 is not to be replicated in the future.

FIRST EVER DECLINE IN TB GLOBAL RATES, SAYS WHO

The number of people falling ill with tuberculosis (TB) each year is steadily declining, says the World Health Organisation (WHO). The WHO 2011 Global Tuberculosis Control Report reveals that the incidence of tuberculosis and tuberculosis related deaths are at its lowest levels for a decade.


The Report’s Findings

According to the Report, tuberculosis related illnesses fell to 8.8 million in 2010, having peaked at 9 million in 2005. Tuberculosis deaths also dropped to 1.4 million, after peaking at 1.8 million in 2003. In addition, 2009 saw 87% of patients treated cured, with 46 million successfully treated and 7 million lives saved since 1995. Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General, attributes these findings largely to increased domestic and international donor support. She states: “in many countries, strong leadership and domestic financing, with robust donor support, has started to make a difference in the fight against TB.”

Tuberculosis (TB) is a contagious disease. Like the common cold, it spreads through the air. Only people who are sick with TB in their lungs are infectious. When infectious people cough, sneeze, talk or spit, they propel TB germs, known as bacilli, into the air. A person needs only to inhale a small number of these to be infected. In 2000, 189 countries which comprised the United Nations at the time recognised the scourge posed by the disease and made the eradication of the incidence, prevalence and deaths caused by tuberculosis as one of the eight Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015. It is however unlikely that this component of the Millennium Development Goals will be achieved as the Report surmises that TB mortality rates are expected to drop by 50 percent in all parts of the world except for Africa.


Fears of TB Resurgence

Despite the huge progress being made in the fight against the disease, fears still remain that the gains made thus far could be easily reversed by the emergence of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). MDR-TB is a form of TB which is resistant to the most effective anti-TB drugs and does not respond to the standard six month treatment of the disease. It is also feared that a shortfall in funding could also hamper efforts to eradicate multidrug-resistant TB.

The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, warns against taking the results of the Report for granted or resting on the significant laurels recently attained in the battle against the eradication of the disease. “Fewer people are dying of tuberculosis, and fewer are falling ill. This is cause for celebration,” said Ban Ki-moon. “But it is no cause for complacency. Too many millions develop TB each year, and too many die. I urge serious and sustained support for the Stop TB Partnership in the years to come.”


The Stop TB Partnership

The Stop TB Partnership was established in 2001 with the goal of eliminating TB as a public health problem and, ultimately, to ensure a world free of TB. It comprises a network of international organizations, countries, donors from the public and private sectors, governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have expressed an interest in working together to eliminate TB.

Frighteningly, only 16% (about 46,000) of the estimated number of people infected with MDR-TB have received treatment worldwide. This alarming statistic may be attributed to the difficulty in obtaining an early diagnosis of MDR-TB. It is hoped that the new rapid test for MDR-TB endorsed by the WHO in December 2010 will modify the current method of diagnosis made redundant by the emergence of the MDR-TB, thereby ensuring that infected individuals are diagnosed quicker and can receive treatment as soon as they have been diagnosed. At present the new rapid test for MDR-TB is being used in 26 countries and this is expected to increase significantly in the coming months. Dr Mario Raviglione, Director of WHO’s Stop TB Department recognises the urgency in ensuring that all those infected are promptly diagnosed and offered treatment. Dr Raviglione states: “But the promise of testing more people must be matched with the commitment to treat all detected. It would be a scandal to leave diagnosed patients without treatment”.


Huge Achievements and Guarding against Complacency

Amongst the countries which have seen significant declines in cases of tuberculosis over the last decade are Kenya, Tanzania and Brazil. Notably, Kenya and Tanzania, countries which have seen a remarkable decrease in tuberculosis, have also seen a fall in the incidence rates of HIV/AIDS infections over the last ten years. Tuberculosis is a major killer of people infected with the HIV virus and the WHO state that a staggering 82% of people in Africa infected with HIV in 2010 developed TB. China has seen an even more marked decrease in tuberculosis prevalence and death rates. Tuberculosis death rates in China fell to 55,000 in 2010 from 216,000 in 1990 while prevalence rates tumbled to 108 per 100,000 population from 215 per 100,000 population.

Despite the huge successes achieved in the fight against the disease so far, the results of the Report should be considered with some caution. The authors of the Report admit that a third of estimated TB cases worldwide are not notified and as such it is unknown whether they have been diagnosed and properly treated. Arguably, this factor may have skewed the results of the Report somewhat. Drug-resistant TB strains and the drop in funding for TB-related global health programmes are undoubtedly the biggest challenges facing health experts worldwide and as such complacency should be guarded against in the far from won battle against tuberculosis.

HOW TO SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE AFGHANISTAN?

The above question ‘How to solve a problem like Afghanistan?’ has now attained riddle-like status amongst international observers, NATO, coalition troops, the US and any interested parties concerned about the crisis in the country. Ten years this weekend, a US led NATO force invaded Afghanistan in the aftermath of the al-Qaida attack on the twin towers in New York, and the citadel of America’s Department of Defence, the Pentagon. The invasion led to the overthrow of the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan, one which accommodated the terrorist group, al-Qaida.

Thousands of dead coalition troops and tens of thousands of dead Afghan civilians later, the country remains in a state of political impasse and divisions which, if left unchecked, will inevitably result in civil war in a country which can least afford to be sucked back into the vortex of conflict. How to solve a problem like Afghanistan has led to the cooling of the symbiotic relationship between the US and its long-term ally, Pakistan. The relationship enabled the Americans to utilise Pakistani resources including personnel in its fight against the Taliban, al-Qaida and armed militants and in return, Pakistan was furnished with financial aid.

The relationship was put on ice following criticism of the Pakistan government by the US for harbouring and providing a safe haven for the Taliban and al-Qaida. The Pakistani government have also shown little by way of action to dispel or rebuff the allegation of their intelligence agency’s (the ISI) close links to the Taliban and the Haqqani network, the group of insurgents linked to recent spates of high profile attacks in Afghanistan including the 13 September siege on the US embassy in Kabul, last month’s attack on a US air base just outside of Kabul and the attack on the CIA headquarters in Afghanistan. Concerns have also arisen over what seems to be the Taliban’s increasing ability to infiltrate Afghan security network. The killings of several significant figures in the Afghanistan government are indicative of the level of success achieved so far by the Taliban, al-Qaida and insurgent groups. The deaths of Ahmed Wali Karzai, the half brother of President Karzai and an influential figure within the country’s government, and Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former President of Afghanistan, as well as the latest foiled attempt on the life of President Karzai by an ally perhaps underscores the reality of the new Afghanistan.

The reasons for the reversal of NATO’s gains in Afghanistan have well been documented. Several of which include the diversion of coalition resources to Iraq, NATO’s complacency in failing to ensure the retention of territory won from the Taliban, NATO’s failure to engage with civilians on the ground and Pakistan’s seemingly lackadaisical attitude towards tackling insurgents and militants operating freely from their territory, especially in the Waziristan region of the country. Analysts have especially identified the Waziristan region of the country as the base or the headquarters of the Taliban and insurgent fighters if you like. Further and importantly, the lack of a legitimate government as an alternative to the Taliban, as identified by the former NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal has also played a part in the country’s slide towards anarchy which has resulted from the porous security offered by the government to its people. President Karzai’s remark, on the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, to the effect that Afghans have been let down by the international community’s failure to provide adequate security did not escape the attention of observers.

With civil war looming and the 2014 withdrawal date of NATO combat forces imminent, the tidal wave of anarchy and violence will need to turn soon. Pakistan surely holds the key to any sort of success which can reasonably be achieved in Afghanistan. The war of words between both countries now playing out in the media is certainly counter-productive. Both countries will need to engage without the posturing currently being displayed as both have a lot to lose in the ongoing conflict. For one, the continuing conflict does little for the reputation or development of Pakistan which is perceived as a safe haven for militants. It is surely hoped that both countries can engage in meaningful discussions to bring about a peaceful resolution of the Afghanistan problem. The alternative is the reality of military conflict between both countries and observers would not have failed to note reports that the US may harbour intentions of attacking insurgents, namely the Haqqani group in Waziristan, the territory of its one time ally, Pakistan.

It is also impossible to positively foresee the current numbers of NATO-trained Afghan forces providing any sort of deterrence to militants after NATO combat troop withdrawal in 2014. Perhaps an extension of the combat troop mission past 2014 should be considered. Endemic corruption in high levels of the Afghan government has also served to reduce the credibility of the government in the eyes of its people. People on the ground have scarcely seen little of what democratic governance brings. President Karzai will need to accept this rather than resorting to his default position of blaming foreign contractors and foreigners for importing corruption into the country. A root and branch re-organisation of government will be needed to eradicate the stench of corruption which has significantly damaged the reputation of the government amongst its people as only then will the people witness and appreciate the results of sacrifice, blood and otherwise, paid by its people for freedom from the Taliban over the last decade.

Commendably, President Karzai has attempted to engage with the Taliban; however his half hearted attempts at engaging with them have proved unsuccessful. Pessimistically, one has to accept that the Taliban will always wield influence in Afghanistan; therefore, the government and the international community will have to accept that reality. New talks will have to be opened by the government of President Karzai, and this time, senior government officials will need to engage wholeheartedly in any sessions, meetings and dialogue held with the Taliban. It is unlikely that the Bonn International Conference on Afghanistan to be held in December will solve the problem that is Afghanistan. Securing peace and stability is undoubtedly a daunting prospect, but it is possible that the international community can rise to the challenge. The alternative is long-term relative decline into anarchy and decadence.

WORLD LOOKS ON AS IVORY COAST TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION IS LAUNCHED

A South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been established in the Ivory Coast in the wake of the country’s civil war. The Commission, launched by President Alassane Ouattara in the last month, is tasked with healing the wounds sustained by the country as a result of the violence which followed last year’s disputed elections. The stand-off between the supporters of the incumbent at the time, Laurent Gbagbo, and his successor, President Ouattara, only ended with United Nations (UN) authorised strikes on the strongholds of the former.

Prior to 1999’s coup d’etat which brought the deposed President Gbagbo to power, the country, which is also the leading producer of cocoa in the world, was one of Africa’s most politically stable countries. The coup thereafter ushered in a period of political instability which culminated in the deadly violence which saw the death of about 3,000 people and the displacement of around 500,000 people in a 5-momth period between December 2010 and April 2011, according to observers and human rights organisations.

The newly sworn in Truth, Reconciliation and Dialogue Commission will consist of 11 members inclusive of civil, political and religious leaders. It was also revealed that Didier Drogba, the country’s most famous sportsman, will sit on the Commission as a representative of Ivory Coast citizens residing outside the country. It is unknown as yet, whether an amnesty, akin to that offered to perpetrators of human rights abuses offering full disclosure before South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, will be given or issued to perpetrators of the violence in the Ivory Coast. President Ouattara opines that the institution of the Commission is essential to the reconstruction of the country in the aftermath of the war. To this effect, President Ouattara states: “the truth means that we need to express ourselves with an open heart, and have the courage to tackle difficult questions such as retaliation as well as the violence perpetrated on our population”.

Whether the work of the Commission will be able to erase the scars left by the civil war remains to be seen. The concept of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission has existed for many years in the form assembled in post-apartheid South Africa or in a derivative format such as Argentina’s National Commission for Forced Disappearances. It is not without its detractors, several of whom assert that the amnesty a times offered to perpetrators of human rights violations in return for a full and frank confession and account of crimes partaken in prevents criminals and murderers from being brought to justice. Additionally, as confessors may become immune from civil or criminal prosecution, it is impossible to ascertain whether the confessors are indeed providing a full account of their criminal actions where confessions are not made under oath. There are also concerns that the survivors are forced to relive the horrors and violence visited upon them through the accounts of the perpetrators.

However, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have championed a new reconciliatory approach in dealing with human rights violations following periods of civil unrest, political impasse or civil wars as opposed to the more adversarial civil or criminal prosecutions. There is also no doubt that the account provided by perpetrators provides an opportunity to ascertain, analyse and understand the reasoning behind their actions in order to prevent their recurrence in the future. Further and contrary to the views of its critics, the grant of amnesties, as was the case in South Africa, was only sanctioned where the Commission deemed that the crimes were “politically motivated, proportionate, and where full disclosure was given by the person seeking the amnesty”.

It should be noted that UN observers and human rights organisations at the time of the conflict reported that both sides were responsible for carrying out serious human rights abuses; these abuses included rape, torture and summary executions. The fact that only the supporters of the former President, Laurent Gbagbo, have been charged with crimes carried out during the crisis has not escaped the attention of observers. If the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to be successful, it is important that it is not seen to be an avenue which merely enables the execution of ‘victor’s justice’. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Chairman of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission concurs in averring: “the perception that ‘victor’s justice’ is being applied would greatly undermine the reconciliation process.” Only the bipartisan indictment of soldiers, mercenaries and fighters from both sides and a full and frank disclosure provided by all those involved will lend any sort of credibility to the Commission and set the country on the road back to the recovery it so dearly craves.

TORTURE: DO AS I SAY, BUT NOT AS I DO

Only the most sincere amongst us will admit that it is much easier to proffer advice than it is to adhere to one’s own advice. The age old adage has never been as apt as at present following claims of torture and the illegal “renditioning” of terror suspects by two of the world’s superpowers, the United States of America and Britain.

Both countries, purveyors of human rights standards, have never shied away from levelling criticisms at “third world countries” or even at fellow superpowers like China and Russia when it is perceived that human rights standards have not been adhered to. Therefore, the discovery of intelligence files by journalists and Human Rights Watch officials which revealed a close co-operation between Libya, UK and US authorities in “renditioning” terror suspects is particularly damaging to the credibility of the British and American human rights credentials.

The papers, which were discovered in the offices of Moussa Koussa, Libya’s Head of Intelligence Services under the Gaddafi-led government, reveals that America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, the MI6 together “rendered” terror suspects to Libya on numerous occasions. The individuals were then allegedly subjected to acts of torture. The find of the huge cache of documents and its contents contradict previous denials issued by both governments denying involvement in the “renditioning” of terror suspects.


Rendition


Rendition involves the abduction and transfer of individuals from one jurisdiction to another and beyond the legal protection of the transferor state. If the allegations are substantiated, the actions of Britain and America will have contravened Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which prohibits State parties from “expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. Notably, the Convention was ratified by the UK on 8th December 1988 and the USA on 21st October 1994.

The evidence against the UK and USA is certainly stacking up. On 5th May 2011, the BBC reported in an article titled “Torture Inquiry to Examine UK-Libya Intelligence Links”, that the former Libya Foreign Minister under Gaddafi, Abdelati Obeidi had asserted that the MI6 was operational in Libya until February 2011. In addition, Mr Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a commander of anti-government forces in Tripoli and former terror suspect revealed that he was captured by the US in Bangkok, Thailand and taken to Libya by both the CIA and MI6 in 2004 where he was tortured. At present, the High Court is still seised of a case brought by Omar Awadh Omar who alleges that he was “rendered” to Uganda in 2010 after being kidnapped in Kenya. In his claim, Mr Awadh alleges that he suffered physical abuse from British and American interrogators. He alleges that he was threatened, beaten, punched and slapped during the course of the interrogation.


The Baha Mousa Inquiry


These disturbing reports come on the heels of “The Report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry” released on 8th September 2011 which investigated the assault of detainees by UK soldiers guarding them. Baha Mousa was an Iraqi man who was tortured and beaten to death in British Army custody in Basra, Iraq in September 2003. The Inquiry surmised that the victims of the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (1QLR) suffered an “appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence”. The subsequent post-mortem found that Baha Mousa had sustained 93 external injuries in addition to internal injuries including fractured ribs.

The incidents highlighted above can hardly be said to be the isolated incidents the UK and USA would have us believe. Amnesty International’s 2010 Report, “Open Secret: Mounting Evidence of Europe’s Complicity in Rendition and Secret Detention”, revealed that several European countries including Italy, Germany, Poland and others had co-operated in the rendition of terror suspects. It has also been difficult to verify whether these flights transporting individuals to 2nd or indeed 3rd States for the purpose of circumventing legislation against torture have ceased. Worryingly, Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing the family of Baha Mousa, asserts that the actions which led to the deaths of Baha Mousa are not a one-off as claimed by the UK military authorities. In an article published in The Guardian on 8th September 2011 and titled “Baha Mousa: Killed in the Shadows”, Phil Shiner asserts that he also acts for about 151 Iraqis who were tortured and abused in 14 different UK Army facilities and by different battle groups. The acts of torture perpetrated on these individuals were said to include mock executions, threats of rape, sleep deprivation, temperature manipulation and solitary confinement for long periods of time.



Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay


The furore arising from the Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay Detention camp episodes have hardly been extinguished before the recent spate of rendition and torture scandals erupted. One recalls the horrid reports of the many human rights violations including torture, rape and sexual abuse meted out by the US and UK Armies to prisoners held in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In addition, it is impossible to forget the lurid reports of torture, beating and poor prisoner conditions in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp which has been used since 2002 to hold detainees from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also significant that the detention camp still remains open despite President Obama’s pre-election promise to close it if he assumes the post of President of the USA. Also, although the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has ordered an inquiry into “the relations between the British and Libyan services”, the fact that 14 or so soldiers involved in the torture of Baha Mousa and other Iraqis are still serving is ammunition enough for those who decry the hypocrisy of the West. It is also significant to mention that the inquiry found that some senior officers were aware of the abuses. This revelation may suggest that the attitudes displayed by the soldiers may be more deep rooted within the military institution than previously thought.


The Future


The flagrant violation of international human rights laws and the Geneva Convention against Torture and Inhuman Treatment by the US and UK hardly sets an example to countries who have been at the receiving end of “lectures” delivered by leaders of the so called “first world”. Undoubtedly, half-hearted attempts via inquiries and investigations sanctioned to address allegations of torture, rendition and other human rights abuses will be seen by countries where these illegal practices take place as legitimising the actions. After all, if it is acceptable by the UK and USA, why should it not be the same for the likes of Bahrain, Pakistan, Uganda et al. The danger however is that these acts of torture, if left unchecked, will become an even more effective recruiting tool for extremists than the speeches and teachings of the leaders of these groups.