Together, we have an unprecedented opportunity to make progress on our common goals of eradicating extreme poverty and achieving sustainable development. The new round of multilateral trade negotiations begun at Doha, the Monterrey meeting on financing for development, this G8 Summit at Kananaskis and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, are key milestones in this process.
NEPAD recognizes that the prime responsibility for Africa's future lies with Africa itself. We will continue to support African efforts to encourage public engagement in the NEPAD and we will continue to consult with our African partners on how we can best assist their own efforts. G8 governments are committed to mobilize and energize global action, marshal resources and expertise, and provide impetus in support of the NEPAD's objectives. As G8 partners, we will undertake mutually reinforcing actions to help Africa accelerate growth and make lasting gains against poverty. Our Action Plan focuses on a limited number of priority areas where, collectively and individually, we can add value.
The African peer-review process is an innovative and potentially decisive element in the attainment of the objectives of the NEPAD. We welcome the adoption on June 11 by the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee of the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance and the African Peer Review Mechanism. The peer-review process will inform our considerations of eligibility for enhanced partnerships. We will each make our own assessments in making these partnership decisions. While we will focus particular attention on enhanced-partnership countries, we will also work with countries that do not yet meet the standards of NEPAD but which are clearly committed to and working towards its implementation. We will not work with governments which disregard the interests and dignity of their people.
However, as a matter of strong principle, our commitment to respond to situations of humanitarian need remains universal and is independent of particular regimes. So, too, is our commitment to addressing the core issues of human dignity and development. The Development Goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration are an important component of this engagement.
Source: G8 Summit, Kananaskis, 27 June 2002
Thursday, June 27, 2002
Thursday, June 20, 2002
Sexual Violence Against Women and Girls in Eastern Congo
Forces on all sides in the Congo conflict have committed war crimes against women and girls, Human Rights Watch said in a new 114-page report. The report documents the frequent and sometimes systematic use of rape and other forms of sexual violence in the Rwandan-occupied areas of eastern Congo. The report, which is based on numerous interviews with victims, witnesses, and officials, details crimes of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the Rwandan army and its Congolese ally, the Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie (RCD), as well as armed groups opposed to them – Congolese Mai Mai rebels, and Burundian and Rwandan armed groups. These combatants raped women and girls during military operations to punish the local civilian population for allegedly supporting the “enemy.” In other cases, Mai Mai rebels and other armed groups abducted women and girls and forced them to provide sexual services and domestic labor, sometimes for periods of more than a year.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Source: Human Rights Watch
Farmers hail Mbeki's 'kill the boer' stance
Orgainised agriculture has welcomed President Thabo Mbeki's public rejection of hate speech such as the controversial slogan, Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer which was chanted at the funeral of African National Congress MP Peter Mokaba. The president of Agri SA, Japie Grobler conveyed his appreciation to President Mbeki for the "clear leadership" he demonstrated in parliament in reaction to objections from farm leaders to the hate speech at Mokaba's funeral as well as ongoing farm murders.
"This gives a strong new dimension to the debate on farm safety and on the rights, value and dignity of farmers," he said.
"The acid test remains whether the necessary mandates and disciplining will ensue so that society can be rid of cancers such as Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer, as well as the lawlessness within which we are living," said Grobler.
He said it was necessary that rural communities "do some soul searching" regarding their own attitudes and choice of words in order to promote unity which is needed to restore a respect for life, property and law and order in the country.
Source: IoL
"This gives a strong new dimension to the debate on farm safety and on the rights, value and dignity of farmers," he said.
"The acid test remains whether the necessary mandates and disciplining will ensue so that society can be rid of cancers such as Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer, as well as the lawlessness within which we are living," said Grobler.
He said it was necessary that rural communities "do some soul searching" regarding their own attitudes and choice of words in order to promote unity which is needed to restore a respect for life, property and law and order in the country.
Source: IoL
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
Mbeki speaks out against 'kill boer' slogan
No one had the right to call for the killing of farmers or Boers, nor the right to threaten violence to advance their particular goals, President Thabo Mbeki told the National Assembly on Wednesday. "Those farmers and Boers are as much South African and African as I am, entitled to the same rights and privileges that are enjoyed by any other South African," he said in reply to debate on his budget vote.
Mbeki's comments followed the recent controversy surrounding the chanting of the "Kill the Farmer, Kill the Boer" slogan at ANC MP Peter Mokaba's funeral, and calls for the government to distance itself from this form of hate speech. Mbeki said nobody anywhere in South Africa had a right to call for the killing of any South African, whatever the race, ethnic origin, gender or health condition of the intended victim. Mbeki said he was proud that many farmers instead of isolating themselves were lending a hand to create a better life for all by being "proudly African".
The president - who has consistently ignored the leader of the Opposition, Tony Leon - again snubbed him by not replying to any of Leon's concerns raised during the budget vote debate on Wednesday. However, Mbeki did wish NNP leader Marthinus van Schalkwyk well in his new responsibiity as Western Cape premier.
Source: IoL
Mbeki's comments followed the recent controversy surrounding the chanting of the "Kill the Farmer, Kill the Boer" slogan at ANC MP Peter Mokaba's funeral, and calls for the government to distance itself from this form of hate speech. Mbeki said nobody anywhere in South Africa had a right to call for the killing of any South African, whatever the race, ethnic origin, gender or health condition of the intended victim. Mbeki said he was proud that many farmers instead of isolating themselves were lending a hand to create a better life for all by being "proudly African".
The president - who has consistently ignored the leader of the Opposition, Tony Leon - again snubbed him by not replying to any of Leon's concerns raised during the budget vote debate on Wednesday. However, Mbeki did wish NNP leader Marthinus van Schalkwyk well in his new responsibiity as Western Cape premier.
Source: IoL
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
Masetlha joins president's men
Home affairs director-general Billy Masetlha will be redeployed to the presidency when his contract expires in two days, says President Thabo Mbeki. Masetlha, a former director-general of the South African secret service, "will reinforce our work in the areas covering security and the criminal justice system".
Mbeki made the announcement when he opened debate on the presidency's budget vote. He said the presidency had to discharge its functions of leadership, oversight, management, co-ordination, mediation of conflicting policy and monitoring delivery. "Like the presidential review commission, the government is of the view that the presidency requires more capacity to carry out these task effectively," he said.
Mbeki re-deployed Masetlha as home affairs director-general in December 1999. Masetlha's contract was controversially extended by a year, despite protests from Home Affairs Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi, citing an irretrievable breakdown of relations with his director-general. Relations between the two men deteriorated even further, especially about the immigration bill and a litany of other complaints, including Masetlha's alleged insubordination.
Buthelezi has previously warned that the department could face legal action, as well as thousands in unauthorised expenditure, because Masetlha did not have a valid contract. Last week, he told parliament: "Just this morning, I have been advised that he (Masetlha) established 153 posts and filled many of them without my knowledge or approval, which makes the entire operation and related incurred expenditure unauthorised."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Mbeki made the announcement when he opened debate on the presidency's budget vote. He said the presidency had to discharge its functions of leadership, oversight, management, co-ordination, mediation of conflicting policy and monitoring delivery. "Like the presidential review commission, the government is of the view that the presidency requires more capacity to carry out these task effectively," he said.
Mbeki re-deployed Masetlha as home affairs director-general in December 1999. Masetlha's contract was controversially extended by a year, despite protests from Home Affairs Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi, citing an irretrievable breakdown of relations with his director-general. Relations between the two men deteriorated even further, especially about the immigration bill and a litany of other complaints, including Masetlha's alleged insubordination.
Buthelezi has previously warned that the department could face legal action, as well as thousands in unauthorised expenditure, because Masetlha did not have a valid contract. Last week, he told parliament: "Just this morning, I have been advised that he (Masetlha) established 153 posts and filled many of them without my knowledge or approval, which makes the entire operation and related incurred expenditure unauthorised."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Monday, June 17, 2002
Parties unite against Mokaba 'hate speech'
Three political parties have expressed concern and outrage about the use of the slogan "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" at the funeral of African National Congress MP Peter Mokaba. The Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging (AEB) added its voice on Sunday night to the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Freedom Front (FF), objecting to the use of the slogan and condemning it as hate speech.
AEB leader Cassie Aucamp said his party would refer the use of the slogan to the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). He said the slogan, which was made popular by Mokaba, had previously been referred to the commission for a decision on whether it was hate speech or not. At the time the commission found that it was not hate speech if seen against the political background of that era. Aucamp said the commission would have to answer the question if the slogan, seen in the current political context, was still not hate speech. He said what worried him even more was the fact that President Thabo Mbeki had been present at the funeral where the slogan was chanted and apparently did nothing to stop it. He said the AEB would also raise the subject in parliament during Mbeki's budget vote this week.
The FF also vowed to a lay a complaint with the SAHRC against the ANC. FF leader Pieter Mulder accused the ANC's leadership of double standards when it came to condemning racism.
In his reaction, DA leader Tony Leon sharply criticised the government's failure to react. Leon said farmers were being murdered at a terrible rate - last year alone more than 900 farms were attacked and 140 farmers murdered - and the government had done nothing to stop it.
Source: IoL
AEB leader Cassie Aucamp said his party would refer the use of the slogan to the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). He said the slogan, which was made popular by Mokaba, had previously been referred to the commission for a decision on whether it was hate speech or not. At the time the commission found that it was not hate speech if seen against the political background of that era. Aucamp said the commission would have to answer the question if the slogan, seen in the current political context, was still not hate speech. He said what worried him even more was the fact that President Thabo Mbeki had been present at the funeral where the slogan was chanted and apparently did nothing to stop it. He said the AEB would also raise the subject in parliament during Mbeki's budget vote this week.
The FF also vowed to a lay a complaint with the SAHRC against the ANC. FF leader Pieter Mulder accused the ANC's leadership of double standards when it came to condemning racism.
In his reaction, DA leader Tony Leon sharply criticised the government's failure to react. Leon said farmers were being murdered at a terrible rate - last year alone more than 900 farms were attacked and 140 farmers murdered - and the government had done nothing to stop it.
Source: IoL
US Supreme Court packed with millionaires
Recently released figures document the fact that the US Supreme Court, an unelected body that rules on issues affecting the lives of millions of Americans, is comprised of representatives of the wealthiest layers of society.
According to financial disclosure reports for 2001, five of the nine Supreme Court justices are millionaires, and the other four are not far behind. These reports actually underestimate the wealth of the justices, since they exclude primary residences. Were the homes of the justices included in the financial reports, it is likely that all nine would top one million dollars in net worth.
The justices, who are appointed to life-time positions by the US president, subject to confirmation by the Senate, are all richer than the vast majority of Americans. Figures on their wealth were released May 31 and reported by the Associated Press.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the wealthiest, worth between $7.7 million and $33.7 million, excluding her home in Washington and some other holdings. She also has retirement accounts worth at least $4 million. Ginsburg has ranked as the richest justice in past years as well.
Stephen Breyer comes in second, reporting a net worth of between $4.2 million and $15.2 million. This estimate does not include Breyer’s home in the posh Georgetown neighborhood in the nation’s capital, although he did list rental property in the West Indies and real estate holdings in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sandra Day O’Connor is worth $2.8 million to $6.4 million. She holds a long list of telecommunications and medical stocks and, like the other justices, often recuses herself from cases that might impact her portfolio. O’Connor is reportedly the most frequently absent for such conflicts of interest.
John Paul Stevens and David Souter are also millionaires, with Stevens worth $1.3 million to $2.7 million, and Souter worth $1 million to 5.1 million.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist is worth somewhere between $510,000 and $1.2 million, not counting his home. Antonin Scalia has a reported net worth of $500,000 to $1.3 million.
Only Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy came in well below $1 million—at least on paper. Thomas reported holdings of between $150,000 and $410,000, not counting his home in suburban northern Virginia. Kennedy reported cash holdings and life insurance worth $45,005 to $180,000. He has reportedly divested major assets over the past several years.
From the standpoint of compensation, all of the justices are in the top 5 percent of US households. The chief justice takes home $192,000 annually, and the other justices make $184,000.
Supreme Court justices, like other high-level government employees, are required to account publicly for income beyond their salaries, and disclose stock or other holdings that could potentially influence their performance on the job. But the reports on the justices’ holdings are vague, listed only in general categories, such as those worth up to $15,000 or those worth between $1 million and $5 million. While the justices are required to report these holdings, they are under no obligation to divest them.
The justices are also required to list non-paid, out-of-town speaking engagements at law schools and other law-related functions. While they receive no monetary compensation, their hosts foot the bill for travel expenses, hotel accommodation, food and other perks.
The Supreme Court in recent years has consistently handed down decisions in favor of corporations and against the rights of workers and the poor. These have included—among many others—a June 1998 ruling attacking funding for legal assistance for the poor and a March 2001 ruling upholding a court order for the Allied Pilots Association to pay $45.5 million in compensatory damages to American Airlines for refusing to halt a sickout. In February of this year, the Court issued a ruling that effectively lifted limitations on the drive by giant corporations to monopolize broadcasting and cable television.
Of a piece with its rulings in favor of corporations and against workers’ rights, this same high court has routinely handed down decisions attacking democratic rights. These have included rulings upholding the execution of the mentally ill and juveniles, and rulings curtailing the rights of criminal defendants—weakening Miranda rights and allowing for expanded powers of search and seizure by police agencies.
In its most infamous decision, the right-wing majority on the Court voted 5-4 in December 2000 to halt the Florida vote recount and install George W. Bush as president.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
According to financial disclosure reports for 2001, five of the nine Supreme Court justices are millionaires, and the other four are not far behind. These reports actually underestimate the wealth of the justices, since they exclude primary residences. Were the homes of the justices included in the financial reports, it is likely that all nine would top one million dollars in net worth.
The justices, who are appointed to life-time positions by the US president, subject to confirmation by the Senate, are all richer than the vast majority of Americans. Figures on their wealth were released May 31 and reported by the Associated Press.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the wealthiest, worth between $7.7 million and $33.7 million, excluding her home in Washington and some other holdings. She also has retirement accounts worth at least $4 million. Ginsburg has ranked as the richest justice in past years as well.
Stephen Breyer comes in second, reporting a net worth of between $4.2 million and $15.2 million. This estimate does not include Breyer’s home in the posh Georgetown neighborhood in the nation’s capital, although he did list rental property in the West Indies and real estate holdings in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sandra Day O’Connor is worth $2.8 million to $6.4 million. She holds a long list of telecommunications and medical stocks and, like the other justices, often recuses herself from cases that might impact her portfolio. O’Connor is reportedly the most frequently absent for such conflicts of interest.
John Paul Stevens and David Souter are also millionaires, with Stevens worth $1.3 million to $2.7 million, and Souter worth $1 million to 5.1 million.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist is worth somewhere between $510,000 and $1.2 million, not counting his home. Antonin Scalia has a reported net worth of $500,000 to $1.3 million.
Only Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy came in well below $1 million—at least on paper. Thomas reported holdings of between $150,000 and $410,000, not counting his home in suburban northern Virginia. Kennedy reported cash holdings and life insurance worth $45,005 to $180,000. He has reportedly divested major assets over the past several years.
From the standpoint of compensation, all of the justices are in the top 5 percent of US households. The chief justice takes home $192,000 annually, and the other justices make $184,000.
Supreme Court justices, like other high-level government employees, are required to account publicly for income beyond their salaries, and disclose stock or other holdings that could potentially influence their performance on the job. But the reports on the justices’ holdings are vague, listed only in general categories, such as those worth up to $15,000 or those worth between $1 million and $5 million. While the justices are required to report these holdings, they are under no obligation to divest them.
The justices are also required to list non-paid, out-of-town speaking engagements at law schools and other law-related functions. While they receive no monetary compensation, their hosts foot the bill for travel expenses, hotel accommodation, food and other perks.
The Supreme Court in recent years has consistently handed down decisions in favor of corporations and against the rights of workers and the poor. These have included—among many others—a June 1998 ruling attacking funding for legal assistance for the poor and a March 2001 ruling upholding a court order for the Allied Pilots Association to pay $45.5 million in compensatory damages to American Airlines for refusing to halt a sickout. In February of this year, the Court issued a ruling that effectively lifted limitations on the drive by giant corporations to monopolize broadcasting and cable television.
Of a piece with its rulings in favor of corporations and against workers’ rights, this same high court has routinely handed down decisions attacking democratic rights. These have included rulings upholding the execution of the mentally ill and juveniles, and rulings curtailing the rights of criminal defendants—weakening Miranda rights and allowing for expanded powers of search and seizure by police agencies.
In its most infamous decision, the right-wing majority on the Court voted 5-4 in December 2000 to halt the Florida vote recount and install George W. Bush as president.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Monday, June 10, 2002
Aids dissident Peter Mokaba dies
Fiery senior African National Congress leader Peter Mokaba, who held controversial views on Aids, died at his home in Johannesburg on Sunday. ANC officials were not prepared to go on record on Sunday night and party spokesperson Smuts Ngonyama was not available for comment. "We want to express shock at the death of a young leader and we would like to express our condolences to the family," said Pan Africanist Congress leader Stanley Mogoba.
Mokaba will always be associated with controversy. "We believe he still had much to offer the country. I believe it is a loss to the country as well as to the Northern Province."
South African Communist Party spokesperson Mazibuko Jara also expressed shock. "We share our grief and pain with the family, the ANC and his friends," he said. "We will release a full statement after we have received a report from the ANC."
Mokaba was recently asked to desist from making public statements about Aids, as were scientists serving on President Thabo Mbeki's Aids advisory panel who held dissident views. Mokaba, an MP, denied that he was a dissident. He fell ill in 1999 and was given long leave from parliament. He fiercely rejected rumours at the time that he had Aids. When he attended the ANC national general council meeting in June 2000, he had noticeably lost weight. Turning his attention to the Aids debate, he made numerous statements emphasising that the virus had not been isolated and that antiretroviral drugs were toxic. He claimed the Americans and the French were fighting for markets to which they could sell antiretrovirals because they had struck an agreement in the 1980s that, if the virus was discovered by scientists, they would share the benefits of sales of drugs. He said in a recent interview that Aids drugs had no benefits beyond profits for firms. "I have fought apartheid and we won," he said. "We will fight this battle (against pharmaceutical companies), too. We can't allow ourselves to be turned into guinea pigs for these companies to play with our lives."
Mokaba hit out at Malegapuru Makgoba, head of the Medical Research Council, because he maintained that HIV caused Aids. Mokaba described him as a "low-grade politician" who was being used by anti-government forces. Despite his controversial views about the disease, Mokaba believed that the government was on the right course with its response to the pandemic. Mokaba had his strongest political support in Northern Province, the region in which he was born.
In March 1987, he founded the South African Youth Congress, Sayco, and was elected president at its launch. After the unbanning of the ANC, Sayco dissolved and the ANC Youth League was established. Mokaba served as ANC Youth League president from December 1991 to January 1994.
Mokaba will always be associated with controversy - and the phrase "Kill the boer, kill the farmer", which he coined when he was the youth league's president. He used the phrase when he addressed a commemorative rally for slain SACP leader Chris Hani at Khayelitsha near Cape Town on April 17 1993. At the time of his death, he was an ANC MP, a member of the ANC national executive committee and the chief electioneering strategist of the ruling party.
Source: IoL
Mokaba will always be associated with controversy. "We believe he still had much to offer the country. I believe it is a loss to the country as well as to the Northern Province."
South African Communist Party spokesperson Mazibuko Jara also expressed shock. "We share our grief and pain with the family, the ANC and his friends," he said. "We will release a full statement after we have received a report from the ANC."
Mokaba was recently asked to desist from making public statements about Aids, as were scientists serving on President Thabo Mbeki's Aids advisory panel who held dissident views. Mokaba, an MP, denied that he was a dissident. He fell ill in 1999 and was given long leave from parliament. He fiercely rejected rumours at the time that he had Aids. When he attended the ANC national general council meeting in June 2000, he had noticeably lost weight. Turning his attention to the Aids debate, he made numerous statements emphasising that the virus had not been isolated and that antiretroviral drugs were toxic. He claimed the Americans and the French were fighting for markets to which they could sell antiretrovirals because they had struck an agreement in the 1980s that, if the virus was discovered by scientists, they would share the benefits of sales of drugs. He said in a recent interview that Aids drugs had no benefits beyond profits for firms. "I have fought apartheid and we won," he said. "We will fight this battle (against pharmaceutical companies), too. We can't allow ourselves to be turned into guinea pigs for these companies to play with our lives."
Mokaba hit out at Malegapuru Makgoba, head of the Medical Research Council, because he maintained that HIV caused Aids. Mokaba described him as a "low-grade politician" who was being used by anti-government forces. Despite his controversial views about the disease, Mokaba believed that the government was on the right course with its response to the pandemic. Mokaba had his strongest political support in Northern Province, the region in which he was born.
In March 1987, he founded the South African Youth Congress, Sayco, and was elected president at its launch. After the unbanning of the ANC, Sayco dissolved and the ANC Youth League was established. Mokaba served as ANC Youth League president from December 1991 to January 1994.
Mokaba will always be associated with controversy - and the phrase "Kill the boer, kill the farmer", which he coined when he was the youth league's president. He used the phrase when he addressed a commemorative rally for slain SACP leader Chris Hani at Khayelitsha near Cape Town on April 17 1993. At the time of his death, he was an ANC MP, a member of the ANC national executive committee and the chief electioneering strategist of the ruling party.
Source: IoL
Saturday, June 8, 2002
Amnesty says US leads in human rights violations following September 11
The Amnesty International (AI) Report 2002 covers the period from January to December 2001, with a particular focus on the world situation following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
The foreword to the report, written by Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty, together with most of the introduction, addresses the attitude of governments towards human rights since the launching of the so-called war against terrorism by US President Bush.
Under the heading “Countering the backlash,” Kahn notes that human rights activists now face an uphill battle: “As the ‘war against terrorism’ dominated world news, governments increasingly portrayed human rights as an obstacle to security, and human rights activists as romantic idealists at best, ‘defenders of terrorists’ at worst.”
Leading into this passage she quotes a revealing comment by an unnamed government official: “‘Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York.’ This blunt statement to AI delegates by a senior government official captured the challenge faced by the human rights movement following the events of 11 September 2001.” Amnesty was unable to source the above quotation as Kahn is presently away, but promised to do so as soon as possible. There is no reason to doubt its veracity, however, given that one attack after another on democratic rights has been mounted in the name of combating terrorism.
US human rights violations
Kahn explains, “the readiness of governments to trade human rights in the interest of security is nothing new,” but the difference today is that this is not done by “autocratic regimes but established democracies in the name of public security.” Heading the list of culprits is the US itself, with Britain also earning dishonourable mention.
The summary introducing the section on the US paints a picture far removed from that presented by Bush in his recent State of the Union address, when he insisted, “America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” and that these include “the rule of law” and “equal justice.”
AI writes that more than 1,200 people, mainly foreign nationals were detained during investigations into the September 11 attacks. Though public information on these detentions remains scant, it is clear that some were held incommunicado. The report speaks of “Muslim detainees suffering physical or verbal abuse from guards or other inmates while held in local jails and of cruel conditions of confinement, including prolonged solitary confinement, inadequate exercise and the wearing of shackles during non-contact visits.”
In late November last year, the Attorney General revealed that 104 people had been charged with various criminal offences, “many of them minor and one directly related to 11 September, of whom half remain in custody. Another 548 unidentified individuals were held on immigration charges,” the AI report states.
Alongside anti-terrorist legislation that severely curtails human rights and civil liberties, “AI has called for inquiries into several incidents involving the killing of civilians by US and allied forces during military action in Afghanistan and into the killing of hundreds of prisoners in Qala-i-Jhangi fort following an uprising.”
The report continues, “An as yet unknown number of Afghan civilians were killed or injured or had their homes or property destroyed during the US-led coalition bombing which began on 7 October and continued for the rest of the year. AI raised concerns with the US authorities about specific attacks in which civilians were killed and civilian objects were destroyed, urged that investigations be conducted into possible violation of international humanitarian law and called for a moratorium on the use of cluster-weapons. In November, AI called on the USA, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (United Front) and the United Kingdom to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of hundreds of Taleban prisoners and others at Qala-i-Jhangi fort, after an uprising by some Taleban captives was put down by bombing by US warplanes and United front artillery.”
Both the US and British governments denied AI’s request for an investigation into what happened at the Qala-i-Jhangi fort.
The stance of the Bush administration finds its reflection throughout the globe. Indeed the AI report makes clear that the launch of the US war on terrorism has had a major destabilising effect on world politics. It is broken down into regional sections including the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, Europe, and Africa. Whatever the region, the assessment notes increased militarism and the systematic abuse of human rights. Khan says in the foreword, “A number of governments jumped on the ‘anti-terrorist’ bandwagon to stifle political dissent.”
Explaining that governments, “rushed through laws formulating new crimes, banning organisations and freezing their assets, curbing civil liberties and reducing the safeguards against human rights violations,” Kahn adds, “Regrettably, a number of these laws used definitions of ‘terrorism’ which were dangerously broad and vague.”
It is indicative that Britain, America’s main ally in the war on terrorism, is also singled out for particular criticism. The section dealing with Britain includes Northern Ireland and a substantial part of the report is given over to the record of human rights violations there. As with America, however, the September 11 attacks have been seized upon to introduce sweeping new legislation that severely curtails democratic rights and civil liberties.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought to strengthen Britain’s ties with the US by providing crucial political support to Bush’s war drive. As with Bush, the climate of hysteria produced after the terrorist attacks provided a useful cloak behind which to make inroads into democratic rights and civil liberties within Britain.
The report explains, “In the United Kingdom (UK), the government passed ‘emergency’ legislation which provided for detention of foreign nationals without charge or trial, thereby creating a shadow criminal justice system without the essential safeguards of the formal system. Legislation was passed in the USA allowing for indefinite detention on national security grounds of non-US nationals facing deportation,” Kahn writes.
“The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was passed in December after less than a month of parliamentary and public scrutiny. The UK derogated from Article 5(t) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] in order to allow for indefinite administrative detention. Under the Act, the Secretary of State may order such detention, without charge or trial and without recourse to judicial review, of any non-UK national deemed a ‘suspected international terrorist and national security risk’ on the basis of reasonable suspicion. The evidence would not be subject to public scrutiny or effective challenge. Among other measures, the Act also denies asylum-seekers labelled as ‘terrorist’ the right to have the merits of their claim individually assessed. In December, eight people were detained under the new legislation.” the report says.
In a separate press briefing on anti-terrorism legislation internationally, AI says of the European Union, “The European Commission prepared a proposal for a set of ‘terrorism’ offences that all member states should prohibit. In Amnesty International’s view, some of the proposed offences were excessively broad or too vague and could criminalise peaceful activities. The Commission also proposed an EU arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states. Aspects of this would infringe human rights guarantees, e.g. not to be extradited to a jurisdiction where the person might face an unfair trial. New measures might prevent people from seeking asylum on the basis that they may be involved in ‘acts of terrorism’ without fully considering their claims in fair and satisfactory procedures.”
Kahn goes on to cite many other examples of countries that have imposed repressive and undemocratic legislation, concluding, “the aftermath of 11 September saw a resurgence in the powers of the military. More and more civilians were detained by the military and tried by military courts. Military forces, as well as unaccountable security and intelligence services, were increasingly involved in public security functions and in intelligence operations targeted at the civilian population.”
The “hypocrisy and selectivity of governments,” while not new, “became even clearer in the drive to build an alliance in the ‘war against terrorism’. Governments remained silent on abuses committed by those they counted or sought as allies. The same governments that denounced the human rights abuse of women by the Taleban government of Afghanistan remained silent about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. Those who condemned human rights violations in Iraq did not protest against human rights violations by Russian troops in Chechnya, or by the authorities in Uzbekistan against Muslims who peacefully practise their faith outside state controls.”
The AI report draws particular attention to the impact of the war on terrorism upon immigrants and asylum seekers. Kahn states that the “tendency... to portray foreigners, particularly refugees and asylum-seekers, as ‘terrorists’” has led to “a refuelling of the fires of racism... People were attacked in the USA, Canada, western Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, not for what they did but for who they were, simply for being a Muslim or Arab or Asian, or even for looking like a Muslim, Arab or Asian.”
Source: World Socialist Web Site
The foreword to the report, written by Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty, together with most of the introduction, addresses the attitude of governments towards human rights since the launching of the so-called war against terrorism by US President Bush.
Under the heading “Countering the backlash,” Kahn notes that human rights activists now face an uphill battle: “As the ‘war against terrorism’ dominated world news, governments increasingly portrayed human rights as an obstacle to security, and human rights activists as romantic idealists at best, ‘defenders of terrorists’ at worst.”
Leading into this passage she quotes a revealing comment by an unnamed government official: “‘Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York.’ This blunt statement to AI delegates by a senior government official captured the challenge faced by the human rights movement following the events of 11 September 2001.” Amnesty was unable to source the above quotation as Kahn is presently away, but promised to do so as soon as possible. There is no reason to doubt its veracity, however, given that one attack after another on democratic rights has been mounted in the name of combating terrorism.
US human rights violations
Kahn explains, “the readiness of governments to trade human rights in the interest of security is nothing new,” but the difference today is that this is not done by “autocratic regimes but established democracies in the name of public security.” Heading the list of culprits is the US itself, with Britain also earning dishonourable mention.
The summary introducing the section on the US paints a picture far removed from that presented by Bush in his recent State of the Union address, when he insisted, “America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” and that these include “the rule of law” and “equal justice.”
AI writes that more than 1,200 people, mainly foreign nationals were detained during investigations into the September 11 attacks. Though public information on these detentions remains scant, it is clear that some were held incommunicado. The report speaks of “Muslim detainees suffering physical or verbal abuse from guards or other inmates while held in local jails and of cruel conditions of confinement, including prolonged solitary confinement, inadequate exercise and the wearing of shackles during non-contact visits.”
In late November last year, the Attorney General revealed that 104 people had been charged with various criminal offences, “many of them minor and one directly related to 11 September, of whom half remain in custody. Another 548 unidentified individuals were held on immigration charges,” the AI report states.
Alongside anti-terrorist legislation that severely curtails human rights and civil liberties, “AI has called for inquiries into several incidents involving the killing of civilians by US and allied forces during military action in Afghanistan and into the killing of hundreds of prisoners in Qala-i-Jhangi fort following an uprising.”
The report continues, “An as yet unknown number of Afghan civilians were killed or injured or had their homes or property destroyed during the US-led coalition bombing which began on 7 October and continued for the rest of the year. AI raised concerns with the US authorities about specific attacks in which civilians were killed and civilian objects were destroyed, urged that investigations be conducted into possible violation of international humanitarian law and called for a moratorium on the use of cluster-weapons. In November, AI called on the USA, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (United Front) and the United Kingdom to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of hundreds of Taleban prisoners and others at Qala-i-Jhangi fort, after an uprising by some Taleban captives was put down by bombing by US warplanes and United front artillery.”
Both the US and British governments denied AI’s request for an investigation into what happened at the Qala-i-Jhangi fort.
The stance of the Bush administration finds its reflection throughout the globe. Indeed the AI report makes clear that the launch of the US war on terrorism has had a major destabilising effect on world politics. It is broken down into regional sections including the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, Europe, and Africa. Whatever the region, the assessment notes increased militarism and the systematic abuse of human rights. Khan says in the foreword, “A number of governments jumped on the ‘anti-terrorist’ bandwagon to stifle political dissent.”
Explaining that governments, “rushed through laws formulating new crimes, banning organisations and freezing their assets, curbing civil liberties and reducing the safeguards against human rights violations,” Kahn adds, “Regrettably, a number of these laws used definitions of ‘terrorism’ which were dangerously broad and vague.”
It is indicative that Britain, America’s main ally in the war on terrorism, is also singled out for particular criticism. The section dealing with Britain includes Northern Ireland and a substantial part of the report is given over to the record of human rights violations there. As with America, however, the September 11 attacks have been seized upon to introduce sweeping new legislation that severely curtails democratic rights and civil liberties.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought to strengthen Britain’s ties with the US by providing crucial political support to Bush’s war drive. As with Bush, the climate of hysteria produced after the terrorist attacks provided a useful cloak behind which to make inroads into democratic rights and civil liberties within Britain.
The report explains, “In the United Kingdom (UK), the government passed ‘emergency’ legislation which provided for detention of foreign nationals without charge or trial, thereby creating a shadow criminal justice system without the essential safeguards of the formal system. Legislation was passed in the USA allowing for indefinite detention on national security grounds of non-US nationals facing deportation,” Kahn writes.
“The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was passed in December after less than a month of parliamentary and public scrutiny. The UK derogated from Article 5(t) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] in order to allow for indefinite administrative detention. Under the Act, the Secretary of State may order such detention, without charge or trial and without recourse to judicial review, of any non-UK national deemed a ‘suspected international terrorist and national security risk’ on the basis of reasonable suspicion. The evidence would not be subject to public scrutiny or effective challenge. Among other measures, the Act also denies asylum-seekers labelled as ‘terrorist’ the right to have the merits of their claim individually assessed. In December, eight people were detained under the new legislation.” the report says.
In a separate press briefing on anti-terrorism legislation internationally, AI says of the European Union, “The European Commission prepared a proposal for a set of ‘terrorism’ offences that all member states should prohibit. In Amnesty International’s view, some of the proposed offences were excessively broad or too vague and could criminalise peaceful activities. The Commission also proposed an EU arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states. Aspects of this would infringe human rights guarantees, e.g. not to be extradited to a jurisdiction where the person might face an unfair trial. New measures might prevent people from seeking asylum on the basis that they may be involved in ‘acts of terrorism’ without fully considering their claims in fair and satisfactory procedures.”
Kahn goes on to cite many other examples of countries that have imposed repressive and undemocratic legislation, concluding, “the aftermath of 11 September saw a resurgence in the powers of the military. More and more civilians were detained by the military and tried by military courts. Military forces, as well as unaccountable security and intelligence services, were increasingly involved in public security functions and in intelligence operations targeted at the civilian population.”
The “hypocrisy and selectivity of governments,” while not new, “became even clearer in the drive to build an alliance in the ‘war against terrorism’. Governments remained silent on abuses committed by those they counted or sought as allies. The same governments that denounced the human rights abuse of women by the Taleban government of Afghanistan remained silent about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. Those who condemned human rights violations in Iraq did not protest against human rights violations by Russian troops in Chechnya, or by the authorities in Uzbekistan against Muslims who peacefully practise their faith outside state controls.”
The AI report draws particular attention to the impact of the war on terrorism upon immigrants and asylum seekers. Kahn states that the “tendency... to portray foreigners, particularly refugees and asylum-seekers, as ‘terrorists’” has led to “a refuelling of the fires of racism... People were attacked in the USA, Canada, western Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, not for what they did but for who they were, simply for being a Muslim or Arab or Asian, or even for looking like a Muslim, Arab or Asian.”
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)