Showing posts with label Medicins Sans Frontieres. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicins Sans Frontieres. Show all posts

Sunday, 4 March 2012

GLOBAL PERSONALITY OF THE WEEK


Jacques Beres, the 71-year old surgeon and co-founder of the NGO, Medecins Sans Frontieres, is this week’s 1worldinternational Global Personality of the Week. Monsieur Beres was recently in the besieged Syrian city of Homs where he worked in a makeshift operating theatre attending to individuals injured in the ongoing conflict.

In a world severely short of heroes, Beres told the BBC, “I travelled there because it had to be done. It’s an emergency, I’ll return if I can”. On the Syrian people, he remarked, “these people are immensely brave. They just want to get rid of the tyrant”. Mosieur Beres, 1worldinternational salutes you.

Sunday, 29 January 2012

MEDICINES SANS FRONTIERES (MSF) SUSPEND MISRATA OPERATIONS OVER ALLEGATIONS OF EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING AND TORTURE


Last week, Medicines Sans Frontieres (MSF) or Doctors without Borders, the Geneva headquartered international humanitarian organisation, announced the suspension of their operations in detention centres in Misrata. MSF have been operating in detention centres located in Misrata since August 2011 where its staff have treated the war-wounded and have performed surgeries and operations on those with serious injuries. MSF attribute their decision to pull out from Misrata to concerns that detainees were being tortured by the Libyan authorities. MSF reveal that about 115 people have recently been treated for war-related wounds. Of concern as well are reports that some detainees were intentionally deprived of medical care and that several patients who had been returned to interrogation centres where the torture had taken place, had been tortured again.

MSF General Director, Christopher Stokes raised further concerns that Libyan officials have sought to exploit MSF’s medical work. Mr Stokes proffered: “patients were brought to us for medical care between interrogation sessions so that they would be fit for further interrogation.” He added “This is unacceptable. Our role is to provide care to war casualties and sick detainees, not to repeatedly treat the same patients between torture sessions.” MSF’s concerns have been buttressed by its counterpart, Amnesty International who have reported that widespread torture had been carried out by armed militia and security personnel operating within the country. Amnesty International’s spokesperson, Donatella Rovera said: “there has been no progress to stop the use of torture. We are not aware of any proper investigations into cases of torture, and neither the survivors nor the relatives of those who have died in detention have had any recourse to justice or redress for what they have suffered.”

The allegations of extrajudicial killings and torture come just three months following the NATO-led operation which brought to an end Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year long dictatorship. Since then, there have been recurrent reports that Gaddafi loyalists, many of them black and of sub-Saharan African origin have been detained in detention centres from where they were then led to interrogation centres where the alleged acts of torture are said to have taken place. The United Nations report that about 8,500 detainees are being held across 60 detention centres in the country most of whom are alleged to have fought on the Gaddafi side during last year’s war. The detained are alleged to be regularly beaten, whipped, flogged and electrocuted during the course of the alleged episodes of torture. It is apparent that the use of torture is being used as a means of settling old scores and rivalries of the Gaddafi era Libya. Recent clashes in the cities of Tripoli, Bani Walid and Benghazi add to fears of civil war and unrest breaking out in the ‘New Libya’.

The Libyan National Transitional Government (NTC) however denies involvement in the recent spate and reports of torture and killing in the country. Speaking to the BBC recently, Ibrahim Beitelmal, the Head of Misrata’s military council, accused international humanitarian organisations such as MSF of having a hidden agenda. He stated: “I think that the people working under the guise of human rights organisations or doctors without borders are Gaddafi’s fifth column. There may have been a few cases of former rebels taking revenge but that doesn’t mean that the orders have come from my office to torture prisoners.”

The government’s denial does little to quell the international community’s concerns over the widespread use of torture in Libya’s detention centres. The UN Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay also voiced worries on Friday about torture, extrajudicial executions and rape of both men and women in these detention centres. In her report to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), she also highlighted the government’s inability to rein in militias or so called revolutionary brigades who have been accused of being behind the grievous acts. She stated: “the interim government still does not exercise effective control over the revolutionary brigade. Light and heavy weaponry in the hands of these brigades pose a threat to public security and protection of the human rights of the population.” She added “something has to be done immediately to assist the authorities, for the State to take control of these detention centres”.

As were the cases in the Balkans after the fall of Slobodan Milosevic and Afghanistan following the toppling of the governing Taliban, some would say that reprisal attacks against those thought to be affiliated with the exiting governing regime, in this case Gaddafi loyalists, was to be expected. The weak government has not been assisted by problems it has encountered in securing its weapons depots, disarming fighters who fought against Muammar Gaddafi supporters and stopping the smuggling of ammunition within the country. Unfortunately fears expressed at the conclusion of the war that unsecured weapons could fall into the wrong hands have materialised and this has led to the creation of militia groups who have carved out areas of control throughout the country. In this regard, the NTC in conjunction with the international community could offer incentives, for example of the financial variety to those who return weaponry to government hands. This will to an extent reduce the amount of loose ammunition in the wrong hands. In addition, the strengthening of the country’s security services will dissuade individuals from taking up arms to protect themselves, their family and property.

Compounding matters in Libya is the lack of the rule of law in a country which was until recently ruled by a dictatorship for over four decades. Certainly, democracy is certain to fail without the foundation of the rule of law and a transparent judicial system which provides a check and balance against abuse by those elected or appointed to act as officers of the State. At present Libya lacks this foundation and like any nation in a rebuilding phase, the proverbial ‘promised land’ is likely to remain just that, ‘the promised land’ for decades and possibly centuries unless the creation of the rule of law is given precedence in its nation building.

The NTC can certainly assist matters by admitting that some of the torture has taken place in government owned facilities and have been sanctioned by government officials. Whether the top brass in the government are complicit in the killings, retaliations and torture remains a mystery. However, what is clear is that the NTC will require the assistance of the international community in combating the concerns raised by the UN, MSF, Amnesty International and other international aid organisations. Without doubt, all efforts exerted by the NTC and the international community for the purpose of upholding human rights standards will be futile without the rule of law being established in the country and strong governance being shown by its leaders.

Sunday, 23 October 2011

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.