Justice Richard Goldstone formally presented to the Human Rights Council his Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, released on Sept. 15, 2009 (click here to read the 600-page report: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf). The Report related to the conflict between Israel and Hamas over a three-week period in Dec. 2008-Jan. 2009; it explicitly criticizes both Israel and Hamas for violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Report, however, is widely seen as a condemnation of a long-lasting Israeli policy of military offensive against the civilian population of Gaza. The fact that the Report was drafted by Justice Goldstone, a prominent international jurist and a long-time supporter of Israel lends even more credence to some of the Report's allegations. The Report concludes that both Hamas and Israel committed international humanitarian law violations, but the majority of the Report's 20 + chapters focus on Israel. In particular, Israel is criticized for a range of acts, including abusive detentions, repression of dissent, a policy of indiscriminate military offensive against the people of Gaza, and many such acts, according to the Report, amount to violations of IHL and war crimes. The Report concludes that Israel is unlikely to establish any sort of a domestic accountability mechanism to punish perpetrators of these offenses; thus it recommends several international accountability measures. First, the Report calls for the UN Security Council to establish an independent committee of experts to monitor the situation. Second, the Report recommends that the UN Security Council refer this situation to the International Criminal Court, for a possible investigation. Finally, the Report urges other states to exercise universal jurisdiction and to indict perpetrators of the detailed offenses in their own domestic courts.
The implications of the Report are important and cause a serious risk for Israel. In fact, Israel has refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Mission, and has been issuing a series of answers and criticisms to the Report itself. This kind of behavior may be troubling for Israel, as it eliminates the possibility of seriously considering Israel as the proper forum to address any claims of IHL violations in Gaza. Moreover, European countries, some of which have already indicated a willingness to indict foreign leaders, may now have a complete evidentiary record of alleged violations in Gaza and may thus go forward with indictments and investigations of senior Israeli leaders and military commanders. It may be a better idea for Israel to seriously consider some of the Report's allegations and to provide an appropriate domestic alternative for possible investigations and prosecution. Such an approach by Israel would earn it international respect and credence for the claim that it's merely fighting terrorists in Gaza.
The Report certainly has its shortcomings too. First, any attempt to use the UN Security Council, as the Report speculates, will certainly fail as the United States has already expressed its unhappiness with the Report and unwillingness to allow for a Security Council probe into Gaza (click here to read the United States' response to the Report: http://geneva.usmission.gov/news/2009/09/29/gaza-conflict). Second, the Report fails to address a serious issue: the fact that Isreal has been engaged in so-called asymmetrical warfare in Gaza, and the fact that this new type of warfare calls for a modification of traditional IHL rules. Hamas has firmly embedded itself within the Gaza population, making it virtually impossible for Israeli military commanders to discriminate between military and civilian objectives. Any application of traditional IHL rules would certainly lead toward establishing criminal responsibility for Israeli military commanders; yet, such a result is unfortunate because it effectively prevents militaries from fighting terrorists any time terrorist mesh with civilians. The situation in Gaza is similar to those existing in many other regions: NATO faced the same dilemma when it decided to bomb the former Yugoslavia; the U.S. forces do as well in their fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. While I am sceptical about some of the Israeli tactics and am concerned about the over-aggressive policy of military offensive against Gaza, I recognize the difficulty of fighting nontraditional wars, where military and civilian objectives blend and where protecting soldiers' lives may imply many civilian deaths. The Goldstone Report should have also recognized this difficulty, while condemning some Israeli actions and presenting a coherent peace plan.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Best Venue for the Prosecution of Terrorist Suspects: Federal District Courts
The Obama Administration seems committed to redefining the parameters of the Bush era “War on Terror,” by ensuring that terrorist suspects are detained and prosecuted in full compliance with both domestic and international legal standards. Such a commitment to the rule of law by the Obama Administration has entailed a re-evaluation of the Guantanamo detention policy, as well as a redrawing of the current prosecution system available for terrorist suspects.
The lingering issue that the Obama Administration will have to address in the future years is how to design the best system for the prosecution of terrorist suspects. Any prosecution system will have to reconcile the tension between ensuring that terrorist suspects are incapacitated from harming American interests while providing them with blind justice and meaningful legal rights. The Obama Administration has realized that the desire to curb terrorism must yield to our country’s commitment to an even, unbiased justice system. I firmly believe that terrorist suspects should be prosecuted in federal district courts, and that several such jurisdictions should be designated as “specialized” for this purpose. By determining a handful of federal district courts as apt to prosecute terrorists (i.e., courts such as the D.C. District Court or the Southern District of New York, which regularly handle difficult and legally complicated cases, and which see a high number of international issues within such cases), the Obama Administration would provide terrorist suspects with the best venues for the legal adjudication of their cases. Prosecuting terrorist in all of our federal district courts could lead toward inconsistent results and potential appellate circuit court splits on issues of enormous national importance. Thus, consolidating terrorism trials in specialized jurisdictions could lead toward a uniformity of results and the development of a unique body of elaborate rules of law, consistently applied by a handful of judges in geographically isolated districts. Moreover, adjudication of terrorism cases in our district courts would eliminate the need for special military commissions, which have functioned fairly well in the recent year, but which have been criticized by many for their procedural and legal shortcomings.
Terrorist suspects are just like any other criminal suspect; their only particularity is the potential to harm American interests in a catastrophic manner. As long as terrorist suspects are detained and then meaningfully prosecuted before competent judges, our national interests will be as protected as they would have been through a military commission system or some other way of adjudication falling short of federal district court proceedings. By prosecuting terrorist suspects in federal courts, the Obama Administration would convey to the rest of the world that the United States respects the rule of law, even when dealing with high value detainees and people as dangerous as Osama bin Laden. The difficulty of prosecuting terrorist suspects in federal courts could be lessened by ensuring that the most competent prosecutors are assigned to those cases, that the investigative authorities share information and data with such prosecutors to the fullest extent, and that the best judges and jurisdictions only hear these cases.
If terrorist suspects are prosecuted in district courts, this will have a positive effect on our interrogation policies as well. In other words, if interrogators know that the potential suspects will one day face a federal judge, applying American law and procedural standards, they will likely shy away from coercive techniques, knowing that information thereby yielded would be excluded from any subsequent trials. Moreover, if terrorist suspects are prosecuted only before a handful of our federal jurisdictions, such courts will become experts in national security law, the applicability of the Geneva Conventions and other aspects of international humanitarian law, as well as detention and interrogation techniques. Thus, prosecuting terrorist suspects in highly specialized and competent federal courts would uphold our traditional rule of law, while signaling our commitment to such rule of law to the rest of the world and contributing toward the development and evolution of specialized rules of international humanitarian law, elaborated through our own courts.
Terrorist suspects are human beings and deserve a full measure of justice, just like any other criminal suspect. The military commissions, developed under the Bush Administration, are an inferior mode of justice that the Obama Administration should shy away from. Prosecution in specialized federal district courts is the only manner in which our national security interests can be protected and our legal justice system upheld.
The lingering issue that the Obama Administration will have to address in the future years is how to design the best system for the prosecution of terrorist suspects. Any prosecution system will have to reconcile the tension between ensuring that terrorist suspects are incapacitated from harming American interests while providing them with blind justice and meaningful legal rights. The Obama Administration has realized that the desire to curb terrorism must yield to our country’s commitment to an even, unbiased justice system. I firmly believe that terrorist suspects should be prosecuted in federal district courts, and that several such jurisdictions should be designated as “specialized” for this purpose. By determining a handful of federal district courts as apt to prosecute terrorists (i.e., courts such as the D.C. District Court or the Southern District of New York, which regularly handle difficult and legally complicated cases, and which see a high number of international issues within such cases), the Obama Administration would provide terrorist suspects with the best venues for the legal adjudication of their cases. Prosecuting terrorist in all of our federal district courts could lead toward inconsistent results and potential appellate circuit court splits on issues of enormous national importance. Thus, consolidating terrorism trials in specialized jurisdictions could lead toward a uniformity of results and the development of a unique body of elaborate rules of law, consistently applied by a handful of judges in geographically isolated districts. Moreover, adjudication of terrorism cases in our district courts would eliminate the need for special military commissions, which have functioned fairly well in the recent year, but which have been criticized by many for their procedural and legal shortcomings.
Terrorist suspects are just like any other criminal suspect; their only particularity is the potential to harm American interests in a catastrophic manner. As long as terrorist suspects are detained and then meaningfully prosecuted before competent judges, our national interests will be as protected as they would have been through a military commission system or some other way of adjudication falling short of federal district court proceedings. By prosecuting terrorist suspects in federal courts, the Obama Administration would convey to the rest of the world that the United States respects the rule of law, even when dealing with high value detainees and people as dangerous as Osama bin Laden. The difficulty of prosecuting terrorist suspects in federal courts could be lessened by ensuring that the most competent prosecutors are assigned to those cases, that the investigative authorities share information and data with such prosecutors to the fullest extent, and that the best judges and jurisdictions only hear these cases.
If terrorist suspects are prosecuted in district courts, this will have a positive effect on our interrogation policies as well. In other words, if interrogators know that the potential suspects will one day face a federal judge, applying American law and procedural standards, they will likely shy away from coercive techniques, knowing that information thereby yielded would be excluded from any subsequent trials. Moreover, if terrorist suspects are prosecuted only before a handful of our federal jurisdictions, such courts will become experts in national security law, the applicability of the Geneva Conventions and other aspects of international humanitarian law, as well as detention and interrogation techniques. Thus, prosecuting terrorist suspects in highly specialized and competent federal courts would uphold our traditional rule of law, while signaling our commitment to such rule of law to the rest of the world and contributing toward the development and evolution of specialized rules of international humanitarian law, elaborated through our own courts.
Terrorist suspects are human beings and deserve a full measure of justice, just like any other criminal suspect. The military commissions, developed under the Bush Administration, are an inferior mode of justice that the Obama Administration should shy away from. Prosecution in specialized federal district courts is the only manner in which our national security interests can be protected and our legal justice system upheld.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Caning of a Malaysian Woman Under Shariah Law: Why This is Wrong!
A Malaysian model was recently sentenced under Malaysian Shariah law to six lashes because of public drinking of alcohol (click here to read the story: http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/24/model-to-face-caning-feels-regret-shame/). In fact, the woman in question had about three beers with some non-Muslim friends at a hotel, and was caught by Malaysian police. During her prosecution, she asked for leniency, arguing that she was a first-time offender and the mother of two young children. In the past, such an argument would have undoubtedly worked, as alcohol drinkers routinely received light sentences and fines. In the recent years, however, with the rise of religious fever in Muslim countries, Malaysian authorities started prosecuting people for Sharia law offenses, such as the drinking of alcohol, more aggressively, and punishing offenders more severely. This explains the sentence that the model received, and which will be carried out in the upcoming days. The model apologized for her behavior and for the fact that she had caused her family such suffering, and she refused to appeal her sentence choosing instead to be publicly caned.
The rise of religious fervor in Muslim countries is alarming. Shariah law has spread throughout religious communities, and even developed countries such as Malaysia seem to be applying with more rigor. In Pakistan, for example, when the Taliban took over the Swat Valley earlier this year, they immediately imposed Sharia law and banned girls from attending school. Shariah law also applies in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, etc., and more modern versions thereof have embedded themselves in modernized societies such as Morocco and Egypt. While some would defend the applicability of Sharia law under the theory of cultural relativism, I find it disturbing nonetheless.
First, under international law, certain things are strictly forbidden. Torturing people or using unnecessary force fall under this category; thus, the public caning of a person would certainly be viewed as prohibited under international law. Second, under international law any kind of discrimination is forbidden, and more specifically, under a multilateral treaty protecting women (CEDAW), discrimination against women is outlawed. Shariah law treats women as subservient to men, and specifically denies them basic rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of eduction, property rights, etc. Third, the label of cultural relativism has been used to justify questionable practices, such as female genital mutilation, which, in my opinion, represents a form of violence against women. Cultural relativism is an important concept and should retain its place in modern-day theories of international law. However, it should not be used as a tool to approve all sorts of barbaric practices, nor as a way of avoiding the application of general international law that would outlaw such practices. While the public caning of the above mentioned Malaysian model may be justified under the theory of cultural relativism, it is illegal under international law. I believe that international law should play a role in all societies, as the protection of basic human rights spans the globe and reaches all peoples and religions. Shariah law should be reformed to reflect on modern-day international law protections and to embrace such protections, instead of nullifying them and rendering them obsolete.
The rise of religious fervor in Muslim countries is alarming. Shariah law has spread throughout religious communities, and even developed countries such as Malaysia seem to be applying with more rigor. In Pakistan, for example, when the Taliban took over the Swat Valley earlier this year, they immediately imposed Sharia law and banned girls from attending school. Shariah law also applies in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, etc., and more modern versions thereof have embedded themselves in modernized societies such as Morocco and Egypt. While some would defend the applicability of Sharia law under the theory of cultural relativism, I find it disturbing nonetheless.
First, under international law, certain things are strictly forbidden. Torturing people or using unnecessary force fall under this category; thus, the public caning of a person would certainly be viewed as prohibited under international law. Second, under international law any kind of discrimination is forbidden, and more specifically, under a multilateral treaty protecting women (CEDAW), discrimination against women is outlawed. Shariah law treats women as subservient to men, and specifically denies them basic rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of eduction, property rights, etc. Third, the label of cultural relativism has been used to justify questionable practices, such as female genital mutilation, which, in my opinion, represents a form of violence against women. Cultural relativism is an important concept and should retain its place in modern-day theories of international law. However, it should not be used as a tool to approve all sorts of barbaric practices, nor as a way of avoiding the application of general international law that would outlaw such practices. While the public caning of the above mentioned Malaysian model may be justified under the theory of cultural relativism, it is illegal under international law. I believe that international law should play a role in all societies, as the protection of basic human rights spans the globe and reaches all peoples and religions. Shariah law should be reformed to reflect on modern-day international law protections and to embrace such protections, instead of nullifying them and rendering them obsolete.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Obama Restarts Military Tribunals for Gitmo Detainees: An Unfortunate Decision
President Obama announced on May 15 that he would restart military tribunals for a handful of Guantanamo detainees - a move that will undoubtedly irk many liberals (and please many conservatives) (click here to read the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_guantanamo_trials). The military tribunals had been set up by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, and had faced a plethora of criticism from liberals, as well as many foreign countries, for denying the detainees with basic constitutionally and internationally protected rights. While only a small fraction of the detainees would be tried in the military tribunals under the Obama plan (the rest of the detainees will be tried in U.S. courts, released to their home countries or transferred to other states), and while the Obama administration has announced that it would change some of the rules currently governing evidentiary and procedural issues within the tribunals, the move is still somewhat surprising. President Obama had, as a senator, opposed the military tribunals and criticized them as falling short of our fundamental constitutional standards. Moreover, President Obama has pledged to close down the Guantanamo detention facility by January 2010. The decision to revamp military tribunals is nothing but an eleventh-hour effort to prevent all the detainees from being transferred to the U.S., where they would be accorded with more procedural rights and constitutional protections. In fact, the Obama administration, while making a laudable decision to close down the Guantanamo prison, exhibited a short-sightedness in terms of providing other accommodations and procedural avenues for the detainees that are currently held there. Human rights organizations and liberal commentators have all called for the transfer of all detainees to U.S. courts for prosecution, or for the release of those detainees who cannot be properly charged in U.S. courts. Conservative commentators, however, have criticized the decision to close Guantanamo by arguing that many of the held detainees pose significant security risks, and that, as our war-time enemies, they should be held indefinitely and not provided access to our courts. By deciding to revamp the military tribunals, President Obama has taken up the middle ground: he is attempting to appease the liberals, by promising that only a handful of detainees will go through the military commissions and by liberalizing the tribunals' procedural rules, and at the same time, he is appealing to a conservative base by holding on to a Bush era system and institutions. The middle ground may be a politically salient move, but in this case, I believe that it is the wrong course of action. Military tribunals fall short of all of our constitutional standards and fundamental beliefs; as such, they should be abandoned - permanently. When it comes to the constitution, there should be no middle ground. When it comes to fundamental values and beliefs, there should be no compromise. President Obama should have held on to his senatorial position and should have parted ways with military tribunals.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: A New Ad Hoc Hybrid Tribunal
Recently, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon began operating, by swearing in judges and establishing a first set of procedures. This tribunal is the latest in the recent trend in the international criminal community toward establishing hybrid tribunals on an ad hoc basis, to deal with particular situations, regions and issues. In fact, other such hybrid tribunals include the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Iraqi Special Tribunal, and the Extra-Ordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. While each of these tribunals has special characteristics and a different degree of domestic v. international features, all of them reflect a consensus between the international community and the host country (Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Iraq, and Cambodia) that something ought to be done about particular crimes in the host crimes.
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and Lebanon, negotiated in 2006, and solidified through several Security Council resolutions (in fact, it had been the government of Lebanon that wrote to the United Nations, requesting the establishment of the special tribunal - a situation exactly alike to the one in Sierra Leone). The Lebanese tribunal has jurisdiction to investigate, and prosecute those responsible for, the attack of Feb. 14, 2005, in which former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri was killed, and several other individuals were killed or injured. The tribunal can also investigate other acts if it finds that they are linked to the Hariri assassination. The tribunal, while directed to apply Lebanese criminal law, is of an international character because some of its judges and its prosecutor are "international" (some judges hail from Lebanon). Moreover, the tribunal's seat is in the Netherlands, not in Lebanon, a fact which adds to the international character of this institution. Like the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is composed of four offices: the Registry, the Prosecution, the Defense, and the Chambers (to read more about the tribunal, click here: http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/lebanon/tribunal/factsheet.shtml).
There are many arguments as to why establishing hybrid tribunals versus purely international ones is a good thing. Hybrid tribunals implicate the host country, if they are located in the host country, they help rebuild its judiciary, institutions, and domestic criminal law, they provide a sense of domestic justice and closure to the victims, can bring about national reconciliation, and can send a stronger message of deterrence domestically. On the other hand, ad hoc hybrid tribunals undermine the International Criminal Court ("ICC"), in instances where the situation could be investigated by the ICC because it fits its jurisdictional mandate. De facto, the United States, a main opponent of the ICC, has been a staunch supporter of ad hoc hybrid tribunals, possibly due to an implicit American policy of thwarting the ICC and sending cases elsewhere. It will be interesting to note whether more ad hoc hybrid tribunals are established during the Obama Administration reign, as our new president seems to have a more supportive stance toward the ICC and may prefer for cases to be prosecuted there. For now, however, the international community welcomes its newest hybrid member, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and Lebanon, negotiated in 2006, and solidified through several Security Council resolutions (in fact, it had been the government of Lebanon that wrote to the United Nations, requesting the establishment of the special tribunal - a situation exactly alike to the one in Sierra Leone). The Lebanese tribunal has jurisdiction to investigate, and prosecute those responsible for, the attack of Feb. 14, 2005, in which former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri was killed, and several other individuals were killed or injured. The tribunal can also investigate other acts if it finds that they are linked to the Hariri assassination. The tribunal, while directed to apply Lebanese criminal law, is of an international character because some of its judges and its prosecutor are "international" (some judges hail from Lebanon). Moreover, the tribunal's seat is in the Netherlands, not in Lebanon, a fact which adds to the international character of this institution. Like the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is composed of four offices: the Registry, the Prosecution, the Defense, and the Chambers (to read more about the tribunal, click here: http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/lebanon/tribunal/factsheet.shtml).
There are many arguments as to why establishing hybrid tribunals versus purely international ones is a good thing. Hybrid tribunals implicate the host country, if they are located in the host country, they help rebuild its judiciary, institutions, and domestic criminal law, they provide a sense of domestic justice and closure to the victims, can bring about national reconciliation, and can send a stronger message of deterrence domestically. On the other hand, ad hoc hybrid tribunals undermine the International Criminal Court ("ICC"), in instances where the situation could be investigated by the ICC because it fits its jurisdictional mandate. De facto, the United States, a main opponent of the ICC, has been a staunch supporter of ad hoc hybrid tribunals, possibly due to an implicit American policy of thwarting the ICC and sending cases elsewhere. It will be interesting to note whether more ad hoc hybrid tribunals are established during the Obama Administration reign, as our new president seems to have a more supportive stance toward the ICC and may prefer for cases to be prosecuted there. For now, however, the international community welcomes its newest hybrid member, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Piracy in Somalia: Why It is Dangerous
The Somali pirates are dangerous.
They are sea-terrorists, operating on a supra-national level: beyond the reach of any laws, in the name of no particular state, and against no specific nations. They enjoy complete impunity – most of the time, they are simply chased off, and if captured, they are often released. It would be unimaginable for the United States to capture an Al Qaeda operative, or a member of any other terrorist group, in order to then promptly release him, not wanting to bother with the cost and difficulty of a criminal prosecution. Yet, this is precisely what some countries, like Great Britain and France, have done with respect to captured pirates. They have let them go. And the United States has, wrongly, not said a word about it. The global laissez-faire attitude toward the Somali pirates needs to change, and the United States’ passivity toward these sea-terrorists has to come to an end.
World powers like the United States should be willing to take on the Somali pirates for several reasons. First, the legal tools needed to capture and prosecute these pirates already are in place. The United Nations Security Council has facilitated the fight against Somali piracy, for countries willing to engage in such a fight, by passing five different resolutions during 2008. These resolutions authorize nations patrolling waters in the Indian Ocean off the Somali coast to cross into the 12-nautical-mile zone of Somali territorial waters if self-defending or pursuing pirates. Thus, countries willing to fight the Somali pirates have the Security Council’s green light to apprehend and capture them, be it on the so-called high seas, or anywhere within the Somali territorial waters. Moreover, a combination of two different international conventions regulating the law of the seas arguably provides jurisdiction to try pirates to either the capturing nation, or to any third nation where the pirates have been rendered for prosecution. Countries like the United States and Great Britain have even signed a memorandum of understanding with a regional partner, Kenya, whereby Kenya would try any pirates captured by the two great powers. Thus, world powers like the United States legally may apprehend and try Somali pirates; it is time that they actually do so. Second, pirates are sea-terrorists and may be or become linked to other terrorist groups. For now, we do not know whether the proceeds of piracy are financing other forms of terrorism. However, it is reasonably likely that the Somali pirates will be befriended by groups like the Taliban or Al Qaeda, for whom pirates can easily steal money and weapons. Furthermore, the Somali pirates, if linked to a terrorist group, may attempt to use the hostages that they are already holding (about 300 as of today) as political leverage against all sorts of unreasonable and politically dangerous demands. This type of hostage use is not novel – some may remember that back in the 1980’s, a faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization hijacked an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and refused to release the kidnapped hostages unless Israel released a group of Palestinian prisoners. The United States has been lucky until now: only one American ship was successfully hijacked by the Somali pirates, and after a three-day long stand-off in the Indian Ocean, all American hostages were safely rescued. In the future, the United States may not remain as fortuitous. The Somali pirates have already pledged that they would go after more American ships, and in the recent days, they have certainly done so (albeit, with no success). Thus, the threat of piracy linked to traditional forms of terrorism looms large for countries like the United States, which may become particular targets. Finally, not fighting the Somali piracy signals a message of passivity and carelessness to all sorts of potentially dangerous individuals and groups across the globe, looking to engage in similar types of criminal behavior. If the United States, or Great Britain, or France, is not willing to fight pirates in Somalia, then the Nigerian or Indonesian pirates may become just as brash in their efforts to seize ships, steal money and capture hostages. Then, piracy would become a global issue, as it once was in the 16th and 17th centuries. This is a dangerous proposal that should be cut at its roots.
The United States cannot do it all: it cannot fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, worry about Iran and North Korea, and negotiate between Israel and its hostile neighbors. It must prioritize its military and diplomatic efforts and give more importance to certain issues and certain geographic areas at particular times. Now is the time to focus on Somalia and its pirates. If the United States seriously began to capture them, prosecute them, and hand out stiff sentences, maybe other nations would follow and maybe the not-yet captured Somali pirates would begin looking for other (legal) lucrative activities.
They are sea-terrorists, operating on a supra-national level: beyond the reach of any laws, in the name of no particular state, and against no specific nations. They enjoy complete impunity – most of the time, they are simply chased off, and if captured, they are often released. It would be unimaginable for the United States to capture an Al Qaeda operative, or a member of any other terrorist group, in order to then promptly release him, not wanting to bother with the cost and difficulty of a criminal prosecution. Yet, this is precisely what some countries, like Great Britain and France, have done with respect to captured pirates. They have let them go. And the United States has, wrongly, not said a word about it. The global laissez-faire attitude toward the Somali pirates needs to change, and the United States’ passivity toward these sea-terrorists has to come to an end.
World powers like the United States should be willing to take on the Somali pirates for several reasons. First, the legal tools needed to capture and prosecute these pirates already are in place. The United Nations Security Council has facilitated the fight against Somali piracy, for countries willing to engage in such a fight, by passing five different resolutions during 2008. These resolutions authorize nations patrolling waters in the Indian Ocean off the Somali coast to cross into the 12-nautical-mile zone of Somali territorial waters if self-defending or pursuing pirates. Thus, countries willing to fight the Somali pirates have the Security Council’s green light to apprehend and capture them, be it on the so-called high seas, or anywhere within the Somali territorial waters. Moreover, a combination of two different international conventions regulating the law of the seas arguably provides jurisdiction to try pirates to either the capturing nation, or to any third nation where the pirates have been rendered for prosecution. Countries like the United States and Great Britain have even signed a memorandum of understanding with a regional partner, Kenya, whereby Kenya would try any pirates captured by the two great powers. Thus, world powers like the United States legally may apprehend and try Somali pirates; it is time that they actually do so. Second, pirates are sea-terrorists and may be or become linked to other terrorist groups. For now, we do not know whether the proceeds of piracy are financing other forms of terrorism. However, it is reasonably likely that the Somali pirates will be befriended by groups like the Taliban or Al Qaeda, for whom pirates can easily steal money and weapons. Furthermore, the Somali pirates, if linked to a terrorist group, may attempt to use the hostages that they are already holding (about 300 as of today) as political leverage against all sorts of unreasonable and politically dangerous demands. This type of hostage use is not novel – some may remember that back in the 1980’s, a faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization hijacked an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and refused to release the kidnapped hostages unless Israel released a group of Palestinian prisoners. The United States has been lucky until now: only one American ship was successfully hijacked by the Somali pirates, and after a three-day long stand-off in the Indian Ocean, all American hostages were safely rescued. In the future, the United States may not remain as fortuitous. The Somali pirates have already pledged that they would go after more American ships, and in the recent days, they have certainly done so (albeit, with no success). Thus, the threat of piracy linked to traditional forms of terrorism looms large for countries like the United States, which may become particular targets. Finally, not fighting the Somali piracy signals a message of passivity and carelessness to all sorts of potentially dangerous individuals and groups across the globe, looking to engage in similar types of criminal behavior. If the United States, or Great Britain, or France, is not willing to fight pirates in Somalia, then the Nigerian or Indonesian pirates may become just as brash in their efforts to seize ships, steal money and capture hostages. Then, piracy would become a global issue, as it once was in the 16th and 17th centuries. This is a dangerous proposal that should be cut at its roots.
The United States cannot do it all: it cannot fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, worry about Iran and North Korea, and negotiate between Israel and its hostile neighbors. It must prioritize its military and diplomatic efforts and give more importance to certain issues and certain geographic areas at particular times. Now is the time to focus on Somalia and its pirates. If the United States seriously began to capture them, prosecute them, and hand out stiff sentences, maybe other nations would follow and maybe the not-yet captured Somali pirates would begin looking for other (legal) lucrative activities.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Former Peruvian President Guilty of Human Rights Abuses
The Peruvian Supreme Court decided on April 7, 2009, that the country's former president, Alberto Fujimori, was guilty of human rights violations, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison (click here to read the story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/04/07/fujimori.peru.verdict/index.html). Fujimori, who ruled Peru from 1990 to 2000, has been imprisoned in Peru since 2006, and was already serving a six-year sentence on unrelated charges, involving abuse of power. Interestingly, a significant number of Peruvians still support Fujimori, who is largely credited with aggressive business and economic policies in the early 1990's that stirred Peru away from financial catastrophe. In fact, Fujimori was democratically elected as president of Peru three times (although his last election was critiqued as irregular and plagued with corruption allegations). Supporters of Fujimori, including his daughter, Keiko Fujimori, who is herself running in the 2011 presidential election in Peru, claim that his sentence stands for revenge and hate of the former president. His opponents, however, point to deaths and disappearances of numerous individuals in the 1990's, when Fujimori was fighting a Maoist insurgency in Peru, called the "Shining Path." Fujimori was accused (and convicted) of authorizing paramilitary death squads to operate against the insurgents during Peru's "dirty war" in 1991 and 1992. Fujimori himself has admitted that he had to "govern from hell, not a palace." When his regime crumbled in 2000, Fujimori fled Peru and exiled himself in Japan (he holds Japanese citizenship as well as he was born to Japanese immigrants in Peru), and then infamously faxed his resignation as president to Peru. Peru attempted to persuade Japan to extradite Fujimori to stand trial in his home country, but Japan remained unresponsive to the extradition request. Ultimately, it was Fujimori himself who sealed his fate when he decided to run in Peruvian presidential elections again in 2006. That year, he traveled to Chile where he was arrested and then extradited to Peru. He has been imprisoned ever since, and it is likely that he will die in jail, in light of his age (70) and his 25-year sentence.
Human rights groups and NGO's hailed Fujimori's sentence as unprecedented and extremely significant in the crusade of human rights protection. Fujimori is the first Latin American former head of state to be formally convicted of human rights violations, although many other countries in this region have experienced dirty wars of their own (El Salvador, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, etc.). In 1998, a Spanish magistrate, Baltasar Garzon, attempted to indict and prosecute Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator. These efforts however proved unsuccessful as Pinochet was never extradited to Spain. Pinochet has been on various forms of house arrest in Chile, but he had never been tried or formally convicted anywhere else at the time of his death in 2006 (although there were numerous charges pending against him in Chile: click here to read the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet). Thus, the fact that Fujimori, a former president, has now been convicted, appears of paramount importance to human rights advocates. This type of conviction of a former head of state signals to the world community that no one is indefinitely immune from prosecution for gross violations of human rights law. Even presidents can one day stand trial if they condone such atrocities. One can only hope that the Fujimori precedent stands and that it serves as a basis for future prosecutions of rogue leaders.
Human rights groups and NGO's hailed Fujimori's sentence as unprecedented and extremely significant in the crusade of human rights protection. Fujimori is the first Latin American former head of state to be formally convicted of human rights violations, although many other countries in this region have experienced dirty wars of their own (El Salvador, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, etc.). In 1998, a Spanish magistrate, Baltasar Garzon, attempted to indict and prosecute Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator. These efforts however proved unsuccessful as Pinochet was never extradited to Spain. Pinochet has been on various forms of house arrest in Chile, but he had never been tried or formally convicted anywhere else at the time of his death in 2006 (although there were numerous charges pending against him in Chile: click here to read the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet). Thus, the fact that Fujimori, a former president, has now been convicted, appears of paramount importance to human rights advocates. This type of conviction of a former head of state signals to the world community that no one is indefinitely immune from prosecution for gross violations of human rights law. Even presidents can one day stand trial if they condone such atrocities. One can only hope that the Fujimori precedent stands and that it serves as a basis for future prosecutions of rogue leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
