NIGERIA: THE FIGHT AGAINST POLIO SUFFERS SIGNIFICANT SETBACK

Worryingly, one has become rather immune to horror stories emanating from Africa’s most populous country such that news of the killing of nine health workers said to be administering polio vaccines in northern Nigeria has not come as a shock.

 

Boko Haram: The History

 

Regular visitors to the 1worldinternational weblog will be aware of the origins of 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 a previous article entitled “Boko Haram: The New Al-Qaeda?”, 1worldinternational highlighted the threat posed by the group. The article also covered fears raised by the U.S. about the Nigerian government’s inability to deal with the insurgency and the prospect that the national problem may spiral into an international concern.
 

As always, the Boko Haram Islamist sect which opposes polio vaccination programmes, for what many term the misguided reason that it is a Western-led ploy to inflict AIDS on Muslim children and cause infertility within that cross-section of the Nigerian society, have been blamed for the killings.  This week’s attack follows a similar attack against aid workers in Pakistan who had been administering polio medicine to those most prone to the disease. Police spokesman Magaji Musa explained: “Gunmen on bikes opened fire on a health centre in the Hotoro district killing seven, while an attack on the Zaria Road area of the city claimed two lives.” Musa continued: “They were working for the state government giving out polio vaccinations at the time of the attack.”

 

Blow to Worldwide Fight against Polio

 

The latest attacks on health personnel in Pakistan and Nigeria, allied with the continued threats to the lives of aid workers in these regions, is indeed a massive blow to worldwide efforts currently geared towards the eradication of the disease. In June of last year, 1worldinternational reported, in an article titled ‘Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) Declares Last Stand against Polio’, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s launch of an emergency action plan following fears of a resurgence of the disease in countries where the disease was thought to have been eradicated. By way of information, the GPEI was formed in 1988 and was spearheaded by the WHO, Rotary International, the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention and UNICEF. It is also supported by polio-affected and donor governments, private foundations, development banks, humanitarian and non-governmental organizations, corporate partners and more than 20 million volunteers.
 

It is perhaps no coincidence that the countries in which the most stubborn and obdurate opposition to the administration of medicine emanates are those – Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria -  in which polio remains endemic to levels needed to prevent the transmission of the disease. The December 2012 and January 2013 attacks by alleged Taliban-linked militants in Pakistan is indication of the continued lack of understanding which is required from leaders of these communities if the Ban Ki-moon led quest to “stamp out polio for good” is to be achieved in our lifetime.

 

Sound-off

 

In the circumstances, the GPEI and those leading the fight against the dissease are left with essentially three options. The first and least favoured is continuing with the same course of action, i.e. sending in aid workers against the background of the real and severe risks of attacks on their person. The second and middle of the road option entails praying and hoping that the military might of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Nigerian government will prevail over those of the Taliban, its allies and the Boko Haram military sect. The third and most preferable option, and which in the writer’s view is most likely to yield the most dividends, is that of engaging and educating the opponents of the vaccination programme about the advantages of immunization to future generations of Muslim children. Perhaps this will, to some extent, assuage fears which manifests itself in the form of misguided views in respect of the aims and objectives of the programme.
 

In this regard, charity organisations who operate within the Islamic world such as the Red Crescent may act as mediators and/or negotiators owing to the fact that they may not face the same allegations levelled aganst Western-backed organisations and aid workers which is that they are acting as agents of the West and that they are essentially, propagating and cultivating a Western-backed agenda. Unfortunately, without the co-operation of the current opponents of the vaccination programme, who also wield such overarching power and influence over the regions in which it is most prevalent, the battle against the disease will be one with which future generations will be saddled.

AFGHANISTAN: UN REPORTS OF FALL IN CIVILIAN DEATHS LEADS TO HOPES FOR PEACE

This week’s report that the civilian death rates in Afghanistan have fallen for the first time in five years comes as welcome news to NATO, whose combat forces are due to leave the country in 2014.

The UN, via its special envoy to Afghanistan Jan Kubis, revealed that there had been a staggering 20% decline in the number of civilian deaths in comparison with the period of January through to April of the past year. Mr Kubis attributed this statistic to several factors which include the fact that there has been less fighting in the first four months of this year as well as the laudable increased efforts being exerted by pro-government and international military forces to prevent civilian casualties.

In this vein, Mr Kubis identified a “very clear desire” by international forces to prevent civilian casualties. Mr Kubis added: “Definitely, I see a much stronger effort to address this problem on their side, the pro-government forces and on the side of ISAF (the International Security Assistance Force).”

The news of the reduction in civilian deaths was unexpected to say the least. Recent figures released in relation to Afghan civilian death rates last year indicated that civilian death rates rose by five per cent from figures recorded in 2010. In 2011, it was reported that more than 3,000 civilians lost their lives while around 4,500 people were injured by suicide attacks, roadside bombs and other violence in the country in that period.

The good news was announced against the background of recent strains in Afghan-U.S.A relations. The relationship or whatever was left of it was seemingly destroyed in the aftermath of the Koran-burning fiasco when copies of the Muslim holy book were allegedly mistakenly destroyed by American soldiers, and latterly, the unprovoked killing of unarmed Afghan civilians by a US Army officer. Following these incidents the Taliban and their acolytes promised all by way of revenge attacks, aside the biblical fire and brimstone. Fortunately that hasn’t materialised on the scale one anticipated.

Despite the news, NATO, the USA and pro-government officials will do well to guard against any complacency in their fight against insurgents and the Taliban. For one, some attribute the fall in civilian deaths to the country’s coldest winter for three decades. Secondly, it is well known that fighting significantly drops during the winter period and also reaches its zenith when warmer temperatures emerge. Unfortunately recent reports of suicide bombings and armed attacks against government and NATO targets in the Afghanistan capital of Kabul seem to lend credence to these lines of reasoning.

After 11 years of fighting which has resulted in an estimated 61,000 civilian deaths and about 3,000 NATO casualties, one hopes that this very much welcome news is not a false dawn but a prelude to an eventual cessation of hostilities and in turn a new beginning for this eternally troubled nation.

KAZAKHSTAN ON THE EDGE FOLLOWING DEADLY CLASHES

Granted, the world’s 9th largest country did not make our ‘2012 countries to watch list'; however Kazakhstan would unfailingly make its way onto the reserve list if yours truly had compiled one.

On 16th December 2011 security forces in the western city of Zhanaozen are reported to have opened fire on an unarmed group of demonstrators consisting largely of striking oil workers. The violence left 16 dead and over 100 injured. In addition, buildings and public infrastructure were also said to have been destroyed during the disturbance. It is reported that the protests were led by oil workers in Zhanaozen who had been on strike since May 2011 demanding favourable pay and working conditions. The protests of 16th December coincided with the country’s 20th anniversary of its independence and have been described as the worst civil disturbance in its 20 odd years as an independent nation. The clashes have led observers to conclude that this may be the catalyst for further mass disturbances in the coming weeks, especially with parliamentary and local elections scheduled to take place later this month.

The indiscriminate shooting of unarmed protestors was initially denied by the security forces and instead blamed on criminal gangs and “hooligan elements” until footage of the shooting of the unarmed demonstrators appeared on the internet. As a result, the office of the Prosecutor-General last week opened a criminal inquiry into the use of weapons by police following the disturbance. Some police officers have also been charged for their part in the clashes and are said to face 10 years in prison if convicted for the crime of abuse of office. The official spokesman of the Kazakh Prosecutor-General’s office, Nurdaulet Suindikar, confirmed that criminal cases against officers were launched on charges of “abuse of authority and official powers involving the use of weapons or special equipment.” Government officials have also muted the possibility of inviting the United Nations to investigate the clashes.

The clashes have been seen by observers as a blow to the country’s image as Central Asia’s most stable nation. President Nursultan Nazarbayev and his associates have successfully sold this image of the country to the West in the last decade, whilst at the same time, concealing the darker elements of his regime. Luckily for him, the West has not sought to dig deeper into the glossy image of Kazakhstan which we are being sold. Mr Nazarbayev has ruled the country since its independence in 1991 and has presided over an autocratic regime accused of nepotism, corruption, human tights abuse and autocracy. Mr Nazarbayev is currently serving a 4th term as President having won elections in April 2011 which independent observers panned as fraudulent. The ruling party led by Mr Nazarbayev also holds all the seats in both houses of Parliament in the country.

The government’s spin machine has gone into overdrive in its attempts to play down the clashes as a one-off incident. Nevertheless, no amount of spin can gloss over the huge social inequalities in a country blessed with oil resources. The latest clashes have also led human rights groups to call into question the country’s questionable human rights credentials. Human Rights Watch has called on the government to investigate allegations of torture. The organisation has particularly highlighted the recent death of a political detainee from “injuries sustained in police custody”. The government’s crackdown on independent media, internet coverage, mobile phone coverage and social networking in the western region of the country during the clashes has also led to allegations of censorship being laid at the feet of the government. It is also reported that restrictions were also placed on the few journalists who were allowed access to the scene of the clashes.

As was the case in Yemen, a blind eye has conveniently been turned away from the concerns raised by human rights organisations because the country is of strategic importance to the West. The West has invested heavily in the country’s energy industry and Kazakhstan has assisted immensely in transporting NATO supplies to Afghanistan. Its cooperation with the West appears to be a form of payment in return for buying the silence of Western leaders who, by their actions or lack of, send the erroneous message to despots that the West will not take them to task on human rights standards so long as they happen to be of use to us.

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.

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.