The arrest of at least 26 activists and others in Kinshasa on March 15, 2015, raises serious concerns of a broader crackdown on free expression before the 2016 Democratic Republic of Congo presidential elections, Human Rights Watch said today.
The arrests, including of foreign journalists and a United States diplomat, followed a news conference by the pro-democracy youth movement Filimbi, organized with support from the US embassy in Kinshasa.
On March 17, 2015, the authorities arrested and roughed up at least 10 Congolese activists in the eastern city of Goma during a peaceful protest outside the office of Congo’s National Intelligence Agency (Agence Nationale de Renseignements, ANR), calling for the release of those arrested in Kinshasa. ANR agents beat a Belgian woman bystander who was later hospitalized, and briefly detained a Belgian journalist.
“The Congolese government’s detention of pro-democracy activists is the latest alarming sign of a crackdown on peaceful protest ahead of next year’s presidential elections,” said Ida Sawyer, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Congolese authorities should immediately release those detained if they haven’t been charged with a credible offense and ensure access to their lawyers and families.”
Human Rights Watch called on United Nations Security Council members, who are due to discuss the situation in Congo on March 19, to publicly press Congolese authorities to immediately release all those detained for their peaceful activities and speech.
Among those arrested on March 15 were Congolese activists, musicians, journalists, technicians, and bystanders; youth leaders and activists from Senegal and Burkina Faso; a US diplomat; two French journalists; and the French director of a production company. The US and French citizens and two Congolese were released after several hours. The others remain detained, possibly by the intelligence agency. They have not been brought before a judge, officially charged with offenses, or had access to their lawyers or families, raising concerns for their safety.
Following the news conference at the Eloko Makasi music studio, men in military police uniform arrived at about 4 p.m. and began arresting people. Witnesses said that the officers at first targeted foreigners. They then began arresting Congolese as well, including those who were preparing the concert stage, and bystanders. The security forces were very rough with several Congolese and West Africans, witnesses said, banging the head of a Senegalese activist against the door of a pickup truck and beating others.
The security forces also took computers and other documents and materials from the hall and destroyed banners.
The military police drove those arrested away in at least three unmarked, white pickup trucks. The US and French citizens were taken to the headquarters of the ANR in Kinshasa, where they were interrogated by senior intelligence officials, then released after several hours. It is not known where the Congolese, Senegalese, and Burkinabe citizens are being detained.
Communications Minister Lambert Mende told journalists that the activists from Senegal and Burkina Faso were “promoting violence through a form of training … coaching of certain youth groups close to a certain opposition to use violent means against other groups or against the institutions of the republic.”
Several Congolese pro-democracy organizations had organized a workshop to introduce Filimbi (“whistle” in Swahili), a new Congolese youth movement. The workshop’s objectives were to promote civic engagement and youth mobilization, and to discuss how Congolese youth can organize in a peaceful and responsible manner to fulfill their duties as citizens.
Youth leaders and activists from Senegal and Burkina Faso came to Kinshasa for the workshop to share their experiences. The Senegalese were members of Y’en a Marre, a group involved in protests against former President Abdoulaye Wade’s controversial bid for a third term in 2012. Those from Burkina Faso were part of Balai Citoyen, a group that participated in protests against former President Blaise Compaoré’s attempt to change the constitution to extend his 27-year term.
“Y’en a Marre and Balai Citoyen are well respected organizations that have worked to promote responsible, civic engagement by youth in West Africa,” Sawyer said. “They came to Kinshasa to share their experiences with Congolese youth, including the importance of peaceful means for youth to engage in the political process.”
Filimbi worked in partnership with Eloko Makasi, a socially conscious music and video production company based in Kinshasa’s Masina neighborhood. Musicians who participated in the workshop went to the Eloko Makasi studio on March 14, 2015, to create a song based on what was discussed at the workshop to encourage Congolese youth to be involved in the democratic process and to promote a free, transparent, and peaceful electoral process.
In a March 16 statement, the US embassy in Kinshasa said the Filimbi workshop was one of many activities the US government supports that involve youth and civil society. “These well-known, well-regarded, non-partisan youth groups as well as the organizers of the weekend’s events intended to promote Congolese youth participation in the political process and encourage young people to express their views about issues of concern to them,” the statement said. “DRC government officials and ruling coalition parties were invited to and some were present during the event.”
Under Congo’s constitution, presidents may serve only two consecutive terms. President Joseph Kabila’s second term ends in 2016. While presidential elections are not scheduled until November 2016, political tensions have been rising across the country. In January 2015, at least 40 people were killed when security forces brutally repressed demonstrations in Kinshasa and other cities to protest proposed changes to Congo’s electoral law that would have delayed elections and enabled Kabila to prolong his term. Numerous political party and civil society leaders have been arrested after speaking out against proposed changes to the constitution or Congo’s electoral system.
“These latest arrests signal a worrying clampdown on freedom of expression and assembly in Congo – fundamental elements of a free, transparent, and peaceful electoral process,” Sawyer said. “Youth leaders, musicians, and activists should be able to meet, discuss, and learn without fear of arrest.”
Source: Human Rights Watch
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Abahlali baseMjondolo Press Statement: The ANC Must be removed from Office
For nine years our movement has boycotted elections. We have been clear that no political party represents the interests of the poor and that it was necessary for us to build our own power in order to present our own needs and demands to society. In these nine years we have won many victories but most of us remain in shacks. Twenty years of shack life is a disgrace in a democracy.
Corruption is also a disgrace. In Durban you get nothing without a membership card for the ANC. All development goes through the councillors and their ward committees and ANC branch executive committees. Development is there to make ANC leaders rich and to control the rest of us by only making it available to ANC members. Development is not for the people. This kind of corruption is a disgrace in a democracy.
But an even bigger disgrace is the repression that we have faced from the ANC, its members, its leaders and its assassins. They have banned our marches; attacked our marches; arrested us on trumped up charges; assaulted us in detention; used armed men to drive us from our homes with police support; used death threats, attacks in our homes and torture in police stations to intimidate people to manufacture evidence against us; detained us for months and months while we wait for a trial that gets thrown out of court because there is no evidence against us; used their anti-land invasion unit to evict us for political reasons and beaten and shot us in our communities. Senior members of the ANC and the Municipality have made public death threats against us. Two activists were assassinated in Cato Crest last year and another, an unarmed teenage girl, was executed by the police.
We cannot go on with this level of repression. As everyone knows we are not the only people who face this kind of repression. We all know about Andries Tatane and all the others murdered by the police on protests. We all know about the Marikana Massacre.
In Durban court orders are just ignored by the Municipality and so the courts cannot protect us. Mostly the media and civil society tend to agree that because we are poor and black we are automatically violent and criminal and too stupid to think our own politics and so we do not get that much protection from the media and civil society either. We have some valued comrades on the left among the middle classes but mostly this left just wants to bus us into its meetings so that it can look credible without having any interest at all in our struggles, our ideas or our safety. NUMSA asked us to support their march in Durban but they have not shown any concern to support us when we face repression. The EFF also asked us to support their march in Durban but, like NUMSA, they have not supported us when we face repression. So far our experience of both these organisations is that they are operating like the left NGOs – we are treated as if our only role is to provide the large numbers of people that they need to be bussed in to justify their politics.
Because we cannot carry on like this we took a decision to vote against the ANC. We did not want to split our vote. We decided to collectivise our vote in order to make it stronger. Our main priority was that the ANC must be removed from office. We knew that this will not happen in this election but we were still clear that if we can weaken the ANC then we must do that. Also we knew that if we collectivise our vote all the political parties will know that there is a large bloc of votes that will be available at the next election for the party that does the best job in opposing repression and takes the best position on shack settlements.
We decided that all political parties except the ANC would be invited to make a presentation to the movement. Some of our members did not want to invite the DA to make a presentation as they are known to represent the rich and, in Cape Town, they are no different to the ANC when it comes to illegal and violent evictions. However we debated this at length and decided to invite them to make a presentation on the grounds that the removal of the ANC was our first priority and the weakening of the ANC was our second priority.
The DA, EFF, NFP and WASP all accepted the invitation to make a presentation to our members at the Diakonia Centre on 25 April and they all came and made their presentations.
The delegates to that meeting then returned to their branches to discuss the presentations there. We met again on 2 May and held a general meeting. At this meeting the general leadership did not vote as their role was to facilitate the meeting. The rest of the delegates voted and the results were as follows:
2 - undecided
2 - WASP
16 - EFF
26 - NFP
146 – DA
The DA and the EFF returned to witness the voting. WASP did not return. The NFP arrived three hours late with lots of car, bodyguards and their senior people. But by that time we were already dispersing.
The whole meeting was recorded on video and this video can be made available. Even those who were very disappointed with the results agree that it was a highly democratic process. The collective discipline of a democratic organisation requires that we all accept this outcome. Of course this decision is only for this election and it does not bind our members in Cape Town. When the next election comes we will again decide whether or not to vote and, if so, which party to vote for.
The main reason why the majority of the delegates supported the DA was because they wanted to have the strongest possible opposition to the ANC to put the maximum pressure on the ANC and to prevent it from doing what it pleases – which includes murdering us. We negotiated a legal agreement with DA which commits them to support some of our more basic demands. We hope that they will stand up for these issues and that they, and all other parties, will realise that if they want the support of the shack dwellers they will have to support us rather than see us as a problem to be eradicated or forcibly removed from the cities and taken to the human dumping grounds.
We will vote, as one bloc, for the DA tomorrow. We will not take membership of the party, we do not endorse its policies and we will continue to insist that no one can hold a position as an elected leader in our movement if they join a political party. We do not love or trust the DA. Already they are telling lies about our choice and we are not surprised. We have made a purely tactical choice. We will certainly continue to organise against all and any attacks on the poor in Cape Town by the DA government there.
One of the lies that is being told is that the DA are saying that we have endorsed them for this election in the Western Cape. This is not true. Our Western Cape branch has endorsed our decision to make a tactical vote for the DA in KwaZulu-Natal. Our Western Cape branch has not decided to make any collective vote for any party in this election.
Over the last nine years we have protected our autonomy from NGOs very carefully even though we do work with some NGOs. Now that we feel that it is necessary for our safety and our ability to continue to organise to use our numbers to make deals with political parties we will protect our autonomy from political parties in the same way.
Our politics puts people first. We cannot do nothing but wait for socialism to come one day in the far distant future. Our children are dying from diarrhoea right now, our old people and disabled people are dying in shack fires right now, we are being evicted and disconnected right now and we are being beaten and shot during evictions and disconnections right now. We been repressed, and even murdered, right now. We have to act to do what we can to make our members’ lives better right now. We have to act to protect our ability to organise and to sustain our living politics right now. This does not mean that we have given up on our vision of a world where land, cities, wealth and power are shared fairly. We call this a living communism and we remain committed to it. But we also remain committed to the human beings that we are now and to our families, neighbours and comrades. We will make what deals we have to make to protect our politics and improve our members’ lives right now but we will not give up on our political vision. We represent thousands of people who live in shack settlements. Those people who sit in university offices and NGO offices only represent themselves. Their children are safe. Their lives are not at risk. They are free to put ideology before people because they are not accountable to oppressed people and because they are not themselves oppressed people. But the fact that we do not enjoy that freedom does not mean that we have given up our politics. It means that we are searching for a practical way forward in a difficult and dangerous struggle.
The new Abahlali electoral position has offered us a lot to learn about. There is a lot to learn about party politics and its dirty campaigning tactics. There is a lot to learn about the deeper politics of our time. And, yes, there is a lot to learn about who cares and doesn't care about the struggles of the poor and the working class.
Ideology and principle are vital but if they both fail to house the homeless and rescue the repressed and recognise the humanity of the inhumanized then the oppressed are not doing any harm to anyone in trying to emancipate ourselves by taking practical action now to keep people safe and to make their lives better while always keeping a bigger vision of freedom and justice in mind.
We share a sadness that we have had to make this decision. Very few people outside the movement have been witness to what we’ve been going through in the hands of the ANC. We do not have words to explain the pain many of us have gone through. We do not have words to explain our pain of twenty years of shack life and all the state repression that has come to us when we stood up for our humanity. Last year we came to the ceiling of hopelessness. It was clear that we are people that can be freely killed. The stress that this created led to some intense internal conflicts. We knew that we could not carry on with our old politics. Our new position has enabled us to rethink our struggle. It may not be the perfect way but it brought a robust discussion about us that was seriously trying to find ways of creating a new hope from no hope.
We are not surprised at the way some people on the so called left have reacted on our position. We are not surprised at the usual lies from the usual people on the internet. Many people and organisations on the left do not accept that we have the right to think our own struggle and to make our own decisions. They think that because they are on the left they have the right to tell us what to do. We do not accept this. These people see our decision as stupid and as a sell-out while they are nowhere to be seen in our times of great difficulty. It makes us to think that such people enjoy our suffering or even benefit from it. Why will people who claim to be in our support judge us instead of contacting us to first understand our decision? It may be a wrong decision but the reality is that we cannot deceive ourselves purposefully on our pain. Why should we be made to struggle in a way that is only designed to try and impress other people simple because they say that they are on the left? We will never do this. Our members must live in shacks and they must try and survive repression. Their organisation is theirs and it will be directed by their decisions. We have never compromised on this and for this we have always been attacked by the regressive left that only want us to take their money so that in exchange we can arrange for people to be bussed into their meetings. This is not emancipation. It is another kind of oppression.
Is the left doing enough to care about our struggle? Or do they see our struggles as projects from which they can prove and debate their findings and analysis rather than as a struggle to genuinely confront the forces of darkness? Our decision aims at trying to keep the space open for us to liberate ourselves by making a tactical move. We do not love the DA or agree with its policies. Why do people who failed to condemn the ANC attacks on us get so angry with us when we try to punish the ANC by making a tactical vote for its enemy? Maybe for these people it is better for us to be oppressed by the ANC than the DA. For us it is better not to be oppressed. Some of the left is just like some of the development NGOs and some of the state. They want to experiment on us, to use us for their own projects. We say no. On this there is no compromise. We continue to say ‘talk to us, not for us’ and ‘think with us not for us’.
Our position remains honouring those who have supported and who continue to support us. Since we all don't know the answers in this struggle to humanise the world we will keep hunting and trying. Sometimes we will make wrong decisions but at least we offer debate and learning for ourselves and all our friends and comrades.
The ANC are a serious threat to society and to right of the poor to organise freely in this society. They must be removed from office and until we can remove them we must do all that we can to weaken them.
For further information and comment please contact:
Mnikelo Ndabankulu on 081 263 3462
Zodwa Nsibande on 082 902 2960
Thembani Ngongoma on 084 613 9772
Nono Majola on 074 803 1986
Source: Abahlali baseMjondolo
Corruption is also a disgrace. In Durban you get nothing without a membership card for the ANC. All development goes through the councillors and their ward committees and ANC branch executive committees. Development is there to make ANC leaders rich and to control the rest of us by only making it available to ANC members. Development is not for the people. This kind of corruption is a disgrace in a democracy.
But an even bigger disgrace is the repression that we have faced from the ANC, its members, its leaders and its assassins. They have banned our marches; attacked our marches; arrested us on trumped up charges; assaulted us in detention; used armed men to drive us from our homes with police support; used death threats, attacks in our homes and torture in police stations to intimidate people to manufacture evidence against us; detained us for months and months while we wait for a trial that gets thrown out of court because there is no evidence against us; used their anti-land invasion unit to evict us for political reasons and beaten and shot us in our communities. Senior members of the ANC and the Municipality have made public death threats against us. Two activists were assassinated in Cato Crest last year and another, an unarmed teenage girl, was executed by the police.
We cannot go on with this level of repression. As everyone knows we are not the only people who face this kind of repression. We all know about Andries Tatane and all the others murdered by the police on protests. We all know about the Marikana Massacre.
In Durban court orders are just ignored by the Municipality and so the courts cannot protect us. Mostly the media and civil society tend to agree that because we are poor and black we are automatically violent and criminal and too stupid to think our own politics and so we do not get that much protection from the media and civil society either. We have some valued comrades on the left among the middle classes but mostly this left just wants to bus us into its meetings so that it can look credible without having any interest at all in our struggles, our ideas or our safety. NUMSA asked us to support their march in Durban but they have not shown any concern to support us when we face repression. The EFF also asked us to support their march in Durban but, like NUMSA, they have not supported us when we face repression. So far our experience of both these organisations is that they are operating like the left NGOs – we are treated as if our only role is to provide the large numbers of people that they need to be bussed in to justify their politics.
Because we cannot carry on like this we took a decision to vote against the ANC. We did not want to split our vote. We decided to collectivise our vote in order to make it stronger. Our main priority was that the ANC must be removed from office. We knew that this will not happen in this election but we were still clear that if we can weaken the ANC then we must do that. Also we knew that if we collectivise our vote all the political parties will know that there is a large bloc of votes that will be available at the next election for the party that does the best job in opposing repression and takes the best position on shack settlements.
We decided that all political parties except the ANC would be invited to make a presentation to the movement. Some of our members did not want to invite the DA to make a presentation as they are known to represent the rich and, in Cape Town, they are no different to the ANC when it comes to illegal and violent evictions. However we debated this at length and decided to invite them to make a presentation on the grounds that the removal of the ANC was our first priority and the weakening of the ANC was our second priority.
The DA, EFF, NFP and WASP all accepted the invitation to make a presentation to our members at the Diakonia Centre on 25 April and they all came and made their presentations.
The delegates to that meeting then returned to their branches to discuss the presentations there. We met again on 2 May and held a general meeting. At this meeting the general leadership did not vote as their role was to facilitate the meeting. The rest of the delegates voted and the results were as follows:
2 - undecided
2 - WASP
16 - EFF
26 - NFP
146 – DA
The DA and the EFF returned to witness the voting. WASP did not return. The NFP arrived three hours late with lots of car, bodyguards and their senior people. But by that time we were already dispersing.
The whole meeting was recorded on video and this video can be made available. Even those who were very disappointed with the results agree that it was a highly democratic process. The collective discipline of a democratic organisation requires that we all accept this outcome. Of course this decision is only for this election and it does not bind our members in Cape Town. When the next election comes we will again decide whether or not to vote and, if so, which party to vote for.
The main reason why the majority of the delegates supported the DA was because they wanted to have the strongest possible opposition to the ANC to put the maximum pressure on the ANC and to prevent it from doing what it pleases – which includes murdering us. We negotiated a legal agreement with DA which commits them to support some of our more basic demands. We hope that they will stand up for these issues and that they, and all other parties, will realise that if they want the support of the shack dwellers they will have to support us rather than see us as a problem to be eradicated or forcibly removed from the cities and taken to the human dumping grounds.
We will vote, as one bloc, for the DA tomorrow. We will not take membership of the party, we do not endorse its policies and we will continue to insist that no one can hold a position as an elected leader in our movement if they join a political party. We do not love or trust the DA. Already they are telling lies about our choice and we are not surprised. We have made a purely tactical choice. We will certainly continue to organise against all and any attacks on the poor in Cape Town by the DA government there.
One of the lies that is being told is that the DA are saying that we have endorsed them for this election in the Western Cape. This is not true. Our Western Cape branch has endorsed our decision to make a tactical vote for the DA in KwaZulu-Natal. Our Western Cape branch has not decided to make any collective vote for any party in this election.
Over the last nine years we have protected our autonomy from NGOs very carefully even though we do work with some NGOs. Now that we feel that it is necessary for our safety and our ability to continue to organise to use our numbers to make deals with political parties we will protect our autonomy from political parties in the same way.
Our politics puts people first. We cannot do nothing but wait for socialism to come one day in the far distant future. Our children are dying from diarrhoea right now, our old people and disabled people are dying in shack fires right now, we are being evicted and disconnected right now and we are being beaten and shot during evictions and disconnections right now. We been repressed, and even murdered, right now. We have to act to do what we can to make our members’ lives better right now. We have to act to protect our ability to organise and to sustain our living politics right now. This does not mean that we have given up on our vision of a world where land, cities, wealth and power are shared fairly. We call this a living communism and we remain committed to it. But we also remain committed to the human beings that we are now and to our families, neighbours and comrades. We will make what deals we have to make to protect our politics and improve our members’ lives right now but we will not give up on our political vision. We represent thousands of people who live in shack settlements. Those people who sit in university offices and NGO offices only represent themselves. Their children are safe. Their lives are not at risk. They are free to put ideology before people because they are not accountable to oppressed people and because they are not themselves oppressed people. But the fact that we do not enjoy that freedom does not mean that we have given up our politics. It means that we are searching for a practical way forward in a difficult and dangerous struggle.
The new Abahlali electoral position has offered us a lot to learn about. There is a lot to learn about party politics and its dirty campaigning tactics. There is a lot to learn about the deeper politics of our time. And, yes, there is a lot to learn about who cares and doesn't care about the struggles of the poor and the working class.
Ideology and principle are vital but if they both fail to house the homeless and rescue the repressed and recognise the humanity of the inhumanized then the oppressed are not doing any harm to anyone in trying to emancipate ourselves by taking practical action now to keep people safe and to make their lives better while always keeping a bigger vision of freedom and justice in mind.
We share a sadness that we have had to make this decision. Very few people outside the movement have been witness to what we’ve been going through in the hands of the ANC. We do not have words to explain the pain many of us have gone through. We do not have words to explain our pain of twenty years of shack life and all the state repression that has come to us when we stood up for our humanity. Last year we came to the ceiling of hopelessness. It was clear that we are people that can be freely killed. The stress that this created led to some intense internal conflicts. We knew that we could not carry on with our old politics. Our new position has enabled us to rethink our struggle. It may not be the perfect way but it brought a robust discussion about us that was seriously trying to find ways of creating a new hope from no hope.
We are not surprised at the way some people on the so called left have reacted on our position. We are not surprised at the usual lies from the usual people on the internet. Many people and organisations on the left do not accept that we have the right to think our own struggle and to make our own decisions. They think that because they are on the left they have the right to tell us what to do. We do not accept this. These people see our decision as stupid and as a sell-out while they are nowhere to be seen in our times of great difficulty. It makes us to think that such people enjoy our suffering or even benefit from it. Why will people who claim to be in our support judge us instead of contacting us to first understand our decision? It may be a wrong decision but the reality is that we cannot deceive ourselves purposefully on our pain. Why should we be made to struggle in a way that is only designed to try and impress other people simple because they say that they are on the left? We will never do this. Our members must live in shacks and they must try and survive repression. Their organisation is theirs and it will be directed by their decisions. We have never compromised on this and for this we have always been attacked by the regressive left that only want us to take their money so that in exchange we can arrange for people to be bussed into their meetings. This is not emancipation. It is another kind of oppression.
Is the left doing enough to care about our struggle? Or do they see our struggles as projects from which they can prove and debate their findings and analysis rather than as a struggle to genuinely confront the forces of darkness? Our decision aims at trying to keep the space open for us to liberate ourselves by making a tactical move. We do not love the DA or agree with its policies. Why do people who failed to condemn the ANC attacks on us get so angry with us when we try to punish the ANC by making a tactical vote for its enemy? Maybe for these people it is better for us to be oppressed by the ANC than the DA. For us it is better not to be oppressed. Some of the left is just like some of the development NGOs and some of the state. They want to experiment on us, to use us for their own projects. We say no. On this there is no compromise. We continue to say ‘talk to us, not for us’ and ‘think with us not for us’.
Our position remains honouring those who have supported and who continue to support us. Since we all don't know the answers in this struggle to humanise the world we will keep hunting and trying. Sometimes we will make wrong decisions but at least we offer debate and learning for ourselves and all our friends and comrades.
The ANC are a serious threat to society and to right of the poor to organise freely in this society. They must be removed from office and until we can remove them we must do all that we can to weaken them.
For further information and comment please contact:
Mnikelo Ndabankulu on 081 263 3462
Zodwa Nsibande on 082 902 2960
Thembani Ngongoma on 084 613 9772
Nono Majola on 074 803 1986
Source: Abahlali baseMjondolo
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The politics of Mohammed Morsi's trial
The trial of Mohammed Morsi is a political trial designed by the Egyptian authorities to disgrace, delegitimise and dispose of the Muslim Brotherhood from the Egyptian political landscape. In a seminal study widely regarded as the most definitive account of the political trial, the Frankfurt school jurist Otto Kirchheimer regarded the political trial as a strategic mobilisation of the devices of law and justice to attain political ends.
"The classic political trial", Kirchheimer argued, is one in which the regime "attempt[s] to incriminate its foe's public behaviour with a view to evicting him from the political scene". Morsi's trial is a classic political trial designed to evict Morsi and his movement from the Egyptian political space.
Political trials are inevitable consequences of revolutions. From the English and French revolutions the 17th and 18th century to the Chinese and Iranian revolutions in the 20th century, the courtroom provided a convenient space for a ritualised elimination of former regimes.
Courts are mobilised not so much to eliminate the defunct regimes but to clarify, rationalise, justify and finally authenticate the revolution in an act of judgment. This is what is at work in Morsi's trial - the use of the courtroom to validate and authenticate a contested revolution. The court is not concerned with the determination of guilt and innocence so much as the rationalisation and justification of the events of July 3, 2013.
A revolution, not a coup d'etat?
The rhetoric of law and order, terrorism, and national security are all smokescreens for the power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military-backed regime. Beneath the rhetoric of terrorism and national security, there are the unfathomable purposes of history and power - a history of a botched revolution; conflicting accounts of what happened on 3 July 2013 (a coup d'etat, a counter-revolution or a second revolution); and the violence and crackdown that followed. The trial reduces these complex historico-political events into an either - or binary proposition that fits the self-referential logic of law.
The charges against Morsi and others - "incitement to violence" and "conspiracy to commit terrorism" - are charges carefully chosen to serve as fulcrums - narrative anchors in which to ground the regime's pedagogic stunts. The trial provides the event - the stage, the language, and the choreography - that lends bodily form, as Alexis De Tocqueville once noted, to the pedagogic enterprise.
As a truth-bearing platform with superior ability of image formation and saturation, the trial gives juridical reality and an appearance of neutrality and objectivity to the narrative of the state.
Within its own self-referential logic, the trial weighs the charges, assigns blame and attributes responsibility for the events alleged by the prosecution. It does not take account of the political and historical war that rages just beneath the invocation of its discourses. The objections of Morsi and his co-accused regarding the coup d'etat, the violence of the military, and the criminal origin of the regime are incompatible with "how the law thinks". For the purpose of criminal law, these are "objection[s] that cannot be heard": They do not signify within law's logic, its rationality, and modes of thought.
Order legitimation and power rationalisation
The immediate purpose of the trial is two-fold. Firstly, the trial is the most effective silencing device: By delegating the matter to a sympathetic judiciary, the regime silences all forms of criticism while it neutralises the political field from its adversary. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the trial has the aim of rationalising and justifying the coup d'etat by retroactively situating Morsi's defeat within a broader historical, political and moral narrative.
Using its truth-bearing discourses that allow it to create images that can neither be effaced nor rectified, the trial rationalises and justifies the power of the military regime. By presenting the adversary in the worst possible moral and political light, the trial both elaborates and consolidates a historico-political thesis in the image of the military and its civilian elites. What matters is not the validity or meaningfulness of the image so much as its effectiveness.
By accusing and judging the defendants for these crimes, the regime has a didactic goal that far exceeds the elimination of the Muslim Brotherhood: It aims to create a generative politico-historical thesis and an enduring image capable of instilling fear, prudence and obedience in potential foes. By projecting and amplifying a terrorist image of Morsi and his movement in the courtroom, a site of truth and justice supposedly elevated from the expediency of power and politics, the trial vindicates and authenticates a historico-political thesis in the image of the regime.
'I am your president. You have no legitimacy'
However, trials are not chess games that go according to pre-arranged rules. They can denaturalise, as to expose its flimsy facade of legality. In exercising the authority to judge its enemies, it submits itself to the accusation of its adversaries and the judgment of history. Just as the state uses the devices of law as political weapons, Morsi too can turn to these weapons.
The device is not equally available to the state and Morsi, but the deliberative framework of the trial and the principle of calling to account means that the defendant has a speaking position from which he can give an account of himself and the charges. Indeed, if Morsi's first day in court is any indication to go by, his trial could well be the trial of the military regime.
In his first court appearance, Morsi rejected the legitimacy and the authority of the court to try him. He argues that he is "the legitimate president" of the republic and accuses the military of a coup and treason. He challenges the court to justify how an illegal action - a coup d'etat - gives rise to a legal right that enables the criminals to judge an elected president: "This coup is a crime and treasonous, and the court is held responsible for it."
Morsi's defence will ask questions the prosecutor and the court cannot answer legally: According to what law, according to what rule of judgment and principle of justice do the courts and the social order they serve exercise the right to judge and punish an elected president? For Morsi and his supporters, "This is a military coup whose leaders must be put on trial in accordance with the constitution."
If an elected president can be called to the court to account for these acts, what of the military leaders who committed a treasonous offense? In other words, can the military bring Morsi to the court without calling the Revolution to the court? It is this question that law is ultimately incapable of answering without sliding into the abyss, to its origin in self-help. It is also here that the disjuncture between law and revolutions becomes most manifest, exposing the government and its courts to the judgement of history.
Regardless of how the court frames and ultimately settles these destabilising questions, Morsi's trial brings both the military and the revolution into the courtroom. The narratives and the verdict leave behind traces or remainders that cannot be integrated, or contained by the trial. It is this remainder, this excess, that exceeds the trial's ability to conceal and suppress, that returns to haunt Egypt and unsettle it from within.
Awol K Allo is a Fellow in Human Rights at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
"The classic political trial", Kirchheimer argued, is one in which the regime "attempt[s] to incriminate its foe's public behaviour with a view to evicting him from the political scene". Morsi's trial is a classic political trial designed to evict Morsi and his movement from the Egyptian political space.
Political trials are inevitable consequences of revolutions. From the English and French revolutions the 17th and 18th century to the Chinese and Iranian revolutions in the 20th century, the courtroom provided a convenient space for a ritualised elimination of former regimes.
Courts are mobilised not so much to eliminate the defunct regimes but to clarify, rationalise, justify and finally authenticate the revolution in an act of judgment. This is what is at work in Morsi's trial - the use of the courtroom to validate and authenticate a contested revolution. The court is not concerned with the determination of guilt and innocence so much as the rationalisation and justification of the events of July 3, 2013.
A revolution, not a coup d'etat?
The rhetoric of law and order, terrorism, and national security are all smokescreens for the power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military-backed regime. Beneath the rhetoric of terrorism and national security, there are the unfathomable purposes of history and power - a history of a botched revolution; conflicting accounts of what happened on 3 July 2013 (a coup d'etat, a counter-revolution or a second revolution); and the violence and crackdown that followed. The trial reduces these complex historico-political events into an either - or binary proposition that fits the self-referential logic of law.
The charges against Morsi and others - "incitement to violence" and "conspiracy to commit terrorism" - are charges carefully chosen to serve as fulcrums - narrative anchors in which to ground the regime's pedagogic stunts. The trial provides the event - the stage, the language, and the choreography - that lends bodily form, as Alexis De Tocqueville once noted, to the pedagogic enterprise.
As a truth-bearing platform with superior ability of image formation and saturation, the trial gives juridical reality and an appearance of neutrality and objectivity to the narrative of the state.
Within its own self-referential logic, the trial weighs the charges, assigns blame and attributes responsibility for the events alleged by the prosecution. It does not take account of the political and historical war that rages just beneath the invocation of its discourses. The objections of Morsi and his co-accused regarding the coup d'etat, the violence of the military, and the criminal origin of the regime are incompatible with "how the law thinks". For the purpose of criminal law, these are "objection[s] that cannot be heard": They do not signify within law's logic, its rationality, and modes of thought.
Order legitimation and power rationalisation
The immediate purpose of the trial is two-fold. Firstly, the trial is the most effective silencing device: By delegating the matter to a sympathetic judiciary, the regime silences all forms of criticism while it neutralises the political field from its adversary. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the trial has the aim of rationalising and justifying the coup d'etat by retroactively situating Morsi's defeat within a broader historical, political and moral narrative.
Using its truth-bearing discourses that allow it to create images that can neither be effaced nor rectified, the trial rationalises and justifies the power of the military regime. By presenting the adversary in the worst possible moral and political light, the trial both elaborates and consolidates a historico-political thesis in the image of the military and its civilian elites. What matters is not the validity or meaningfulness of the image so much as its effectiveness.
By accusing and judging the defendants for these crimes, the regime has a didactic goal that far exceeds the elimination of the Muslim Brotherhood: It aims to create a generative politico-historical thesis and an enduring image capable of instilling fear, prudence and obedience in potential foes. By projecting and amplifying a terrorist image of Morsi and his movement in the courtroom, a site of truth and justice supposedly elevated from the expediency of power and politics, the trial vindicates and authenticates a historico-political thesis in the image of the regime.
'I am your president. You have no legitimacy'
However, trials are not chess games that go according to pre-arranged rules. They can denaturalise, as to expose its flimsy facade of legality. In exercising the authority to judge its enemies, it submits itself to the accusation of its adversaries and the judgment of history. Just as the state uses the devices of law as political weapons, Morsi too can turn to these weapons.
The device is not equally available to the state and Morsi, but the deliberative framework of the trial and the principle of calling to account means that the defendant has a speaking position from which he can give an account of himself and the charges. Indeed, if Morsi's first day in court is any indication to go by, his trial could well be the trial of the military regime.
In his first court appearance, Morsi rejected the legitimacy and the authority of the court to try him. He argues that he is "the legitimate president" of the republic and accuses the military of a coup and treason. He challenges the court to justify how an illegal action - a coup d'etat - gives rise to a legal right that enables the criminals to judge an elected president: "This coup is a crime and treasonous, and the court is held responsible for it."
Morsi's defence will ask questions the prosecutor and the court cannot answer legally: According to what law, according to what rule of judgment and principle of justice do the courts and the social order they serve exercise the right to judge and punish an elected president? For Morsi and his supporters, "This is a military coup whose leaders must be put on trial in accordance with the constitution."
If an elected president can be called to the court to account for these acts, what of the military leaders who committed a treasonous offense? In other words, can the military bring Morsi to the court without calling the Revolution to the court? It is this question that law is ultimately incapable of answering without sliding into the abyss, to its origin in self-help. It is also here that the disjuncture between law and revolutions becomes most manifest, exposing the government and its courts to the judgement of history.
Regardless of how the court frames and ultimately settles these destabilising questions, Morsi's trial brings both the military and the revolution into the courtroom. The narratives and the verdict leave behind traces or remainders that cannot be integrated, or contained by the trial. It is this remainder, this excess, that exceeds the trial's ability to conceal and suppress, that returns to haunt Egypt and unsettle it from within.
Awol K Allo is a Fellow in Human Rights at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
The global plutocracy
On the eve of the annual spectacle of parasitic wealth and power that is the World Economic Forum in the Alpine resort town of Davos, Switzerland, the Oxfam charity has issued a report warning of the unprecedented growth of social inequality throughout the world.
Describing a planet in the malevolent grip of a handful of plutocrats, the report states that the richest 85 people in the world control as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the world's population—3.5 billion people! It notes that the richest 1 percent today controls 46 percent of the world’s wealth. Oxfam writes: “The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion… 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.”
The report includes a chart showing that since 2008, the United States has had the largest increase in social inequality of any developed country.
The impoverishment of the working class on the one side and further enrichment of the financial elite on the other have accelerated since the Wall Street crash of that year. While the wealth of the world’s billionaires has doubled, there are today over 1 billion people living on less than a dollar per day, and nearly half the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, subsist on less than $2.50 per day.
The same day Oxfam issued its study, the International Labor Organization reported that the number of unemployed people worldwide grew by 5 million in 2013, to 202 million. The ILO predicted that the ranks of the unemployed would continue to rise in 2014.
There is no parallel in human history to the immense concentration of wealth that exists today, nor to the extremes of parasitism and decadence that constitute the “new normal.” Contemporary capitalism—what the ruling class and its political and media flunkies call the “free enterprise system”—has created a world in which every policy decision is dictated by the need to protect and increase the wealth of an infinitesimal portion of the world’s population.
This global plutocracy—by definition, a society governed by the wealthy—generates a huge and ever-increasing portion of the ruling elite’s wealth not from the production of useful products and expansion of society’s productive capacities, but from the manipulation of money, speculation and outright swindling—essentially criminal activities that are destructive of the productive forces.
A few hundred people, backed by an army of bribed politicians, academic apologists, intelligence spooks, experts of all sorts and the repressive force of the military and police, hold civilization by the throat and threaten to destroy it to satisfy their insatiable greed.
This social—or, to be more precise, anti-social—element is virulently hostile to the people, contemptuous of democratic rights, and militaristic.
In its effort to expand its personal wealth, it relentlessly attacks the living standards of the working class—the vast majority of the population. All over the world, governments controlled by the plutocrats impose ever more painful austerity, cutting wages, slashing jobs, dismantling social programs, closing schools, gutting health care. State treasuries are emptied to provide bailouts to the banks and corporations and central banks pump trillions into the financial markets to drive up stock prices, corporate profits and CEO pay. All legal restrictions on profit-making are lifted.
To deal with the opposition of the workers, governments are systematically criminalizing organized resistance by the working class. In countries across Europe, every significant strike is met with legal bans and police violence.
Petrified at the prospect of social revolution, they are putting in place the infrastructure of a global totalitarian police state, as revealed by the revelations of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Competing cliques of plutocrats, using their national states as bases of operation, invade weaker countries and occupy and plunder them without mercy, inflicting death and destruction. In the struggle against their rivals for control of territories, markets, resources and cheap labor, they turn the planet into an armed camp and threaten to plunge mankind into a third world war, this time with the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
The rich and the super-rich will be on display this week at Davos, the yearly event at which government officials and leaders of global agencies such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund come to pay obeisance to billionaire bankers and corporate CEOs.
The global financial elite is preparing, in the words of one commentator, “to jet to the World Economic Forum 5,000 feet up in the Swiss Alps in their helicopters, mink-clad trophy wives in tow.” The cost of attending the conference, estimated by CNN at around $40,000 per person, is about 50 percent greater than what a typical worker in the US makes in a year.
This conference has announced that the “problem” of social inequality will be a central topic of discussion.
The masses all over the world are becoming increasingly outraged over this criminal layer, which they hate and despise. It is only a matter of time before that anger is transformed into action.
The moneyed elite is haunted by the specter of social upheaval and revolution. They received a taste of it three years ago in the mass working class uprising that brought down the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt. They have seen social explosions in Europe and anticipations of coming upheavals in the United States.
That they have been able to hold onto power is above all due to the treachery of the trade union bureaucracies, aided by their apologists in the right-wing organizations that call themselves “left,” such as the International Socialist Organization in the United States, the New Anti-capitalist Party in France, the Left Party in Germany, and Syriza in Greece.
The more perceptive and far-sighted defenders of the capitalist system are warning that the present situation is unsustainable. Last week, the Financial Times ’ chief economic commentator Martin Wolf penned a comment entitled, “Failing elites threaten our future,” in which he warned of the growing threat of social revolution.
Citing the 100th anniversary of World War I, the first global catastrophe that signaled the death agony of capitalism and precipitated the Russian revolution three years later, Wolf warned that the “globalized economic and financial elite … have become ever more detached from the countries that produced them …The narrow distribution of the gains of economic growth greatly enhances this development. This, then, is ever more a plutocracy.”
Since the financial breakdown of 2008, he wrote, the “economic, financial, intellectual and political elites” have discredited themselves. “If elites continue to fail,” he concluded, “we will go on watching the rise of angry populists. The elites need to do better. If they do not, rage may overwhelm us all.”
The people of the world are confronted with the question: What is to be done with this anti-social and criminal layer that is strangling the planet? Nothing can be changed by appealing to the “better angels” of the plutocracy, as Oxfam would do. Nor by appealing to the elite’s rational faculties, as Wolf seeks to do.
As a matter of social hygiene and basic survival, the wealth of this parasitic layer must be expropriated. The working class, organized as an independent political force, must seize it and use it to meet crying social needs—jobs, health care, education, housing, nutrition, access to culture and art.
The death-grip of the plutocrats over finance and industry must be broken. The banks and corporations must be taken out of private hands and placed under public ownership and democratic control. There is only one way this can be done: by means of the revolutionary transformation of society and the establishment of socialism.
Andre Damon and Barry Grey
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Describing a planet in the malevolent grip of a handful of plutocrats, the report states that the richest 85 people in the world control as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the world's population—3.5 billion people! It notes that the richest 1 percent today controls 46 percent of the world’s wealth. Oxfam writes: “The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion… 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.”
The report includes a chart showing that since 2008, the United States has had the largest increase in social inequality of any developed country.
The impoverishment of the working class on the one side and further enrichment of the financial elite on the other have accelerated since the Wall Street crash of that year. While the wealth of the world’s billionaires has doubled, there are today over 1 billion people living on less than a dollar per day, and nearly half the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, subsist on less than $2.50 per day.
The same day Oxfam issued its study, the International Labor Organization reported that the number of unemployed people worldwide grew by 5 million in 2013, to 202 million. The ILO predicted that the ranks of the unemployed would continue to rise in 2014.
There is no parallel in human history to the immense concentration of wealth that exists today, nor to the extremes of parasitism and decadence that constitute the “new normal.” Contemporary capitalism—what the ruling class and its political and media flunkies call the “free enterprise system”—has created a world in which every policy decision is dictated by the need to protect and increase the wealth of an infinitesimal portion of the world’s population.
This global plutocracy—by definition, a society governed by the wealthy—generates a huge and ever-increasing portion of the ruling elite’s wealth not from the production of useful products and expansion of society’s productive capacities, but from the manipulation of money, speculation and outright swindling—essentially criminal activities that are destructive of the productive forces.
A few hundred people, backed by an army of bribed politicians, academic apologists, intelligence spooks, experts of all sorts and the repressive force of the military and police, hold civilization by the throat and threaten to destroy it to satisfy their insatiable greed.
This social—or, to be more precise, anti-social—element is virulently hostile to the people, contemptuous of democratic rights, and militaristic.
In its effort to expand its personal wealth, it relentlessly attacks the living standards of the working class—the vast majority of the population. All over the world, governments controlled by the plutocrats impose ever more painful austerity, cutting wages, slashing jobs, dismantling social programs, closing schools, gutting health care. State treasuries are emptied to provide bailouts to the banks and corporations and central banks pump trillions into the financial markets to drive up stock prices, corporate profits and CEO pay. All legal restrictions on profit-making are lifted.
To deal with the opposition of the workers, governments are systematically criminalizing organized resistance by the working class. In countries across Europe, every significant strike is met with legal bans and police violence.
Petrified at the prospect of social revolution, they are putting in place the infrastructure of a global totalitarian police state, as revealed by the revelations of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Competing cliques of plutocrats, using their national states as bases of operation, invade weaker countries and occupy and plunder them without mercy, inflicting death and destruction. In the struggle against their rivals for control of territories, markets, resources and cheap labor, they turn the planet into an armed camp and threaten to plunge mankind into a third world war, this time with the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
The rich and the super-rich will be on display this week at Davos, the yearly event at which government officials and leaders of global agencies such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund come to pay obeisance to billionaire bankers and corporate CEOs.
The global financial elite is preparing, in the words of one commentator, “to jet to the World Economic Forum 5,000 feet up in the Swiss Alps in their helicopters, mink-clad trophy wives in tow.” The cost of attending the conference, estimated by CNN at around $40,000 per person, is about 50 percent greater than what a typical worker in the US makes in a year.
This conference has announced that the “problem” of social inequality will be a central topic of discussion.
The masses all over the world are becoming increasingly outraged over this criminal layer, which they hate and despise. It is only a matter of time before that anger is transformed into action.
The moneyed elite is haunted by the specter of social upheaval and revolution. They received a taste of it three years ago in the mass working class uprising that brought down the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt. They have seen social explosions in Europe and anticipations of coming upheavals in the United States.
That they have been able to hold onto power is above all due to the treachery of the trade union bureaucracies, aided by their apologists in the right-wing organizations that call themselves “left,” such as the International Socialist Organization in the United States, the New Anti-capitalist Party in France, the Left Party in Germany, and Syriza in Greece.
The more perceptive and far-sighted defenders of the capitalist system are warning that the present situation is unsustainable. Last week, the Financial Times ’ chief economic commentator Martin Wolf penned a comment entitled, “Failing elites threaten our future,” in which he warned of the growing threat of social revolution.
Citing the 100th anniversary of World War I, the first global catastrophe that signaled the death agony of capitalism and precipitated the Russian revolution three years later, Wolf warned that the “globalized economic and financial elite … have become ever more detached from the countries that produced them …The narrow distribution of the gains of economic growth greatly enhances this development. This, then, is ever more a plutocracy.”
Since the financial breakdown of 2008, he wrote, the “economic, financial, intellectual and political elites” have discredited themselves. “If elites continue to fail,” he concluded, “we will go on watching the rise of angry populists. The elites need to do better. If they do not, rage may overwhelm us all.”
The people of the world are confronted with the question: What is to be done with this anti-social and criminal layer that is strangling the planet? Nothing can be changed by appealing to the “better angels” of the plutocracy, as Oxfam would do. Nor by appealing to the elite’s rational faculties, as Wolf seeks to do.
As a matter of social hygiene and basic survival, the wealth of this parasitic layer must be expropriated. The working class, organized as an independent political force, must seize it and use it to meet crying social needs—jobs, health care, education, housing, nutrition, access to culture and art.
The death-grip of the plutocrats over finance and industry must be broken. The banks and corporations must be taken out of private hands and placed under public ownership and democratic control. There is only one way this can be done: by means of the revolutionary transformation of society and the establishment of socialism.
Andre Damon and Barry Grey
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Agang launch: Nkandla, Guptas, Arms Deal - Ramphele criticises government
"The leaders of this current government set an appalling example that others follow ... They seem to think they are beyond the reach of the law," Agang SA leader Mamphela Ramphele said on Saturday at the Tshwane Events Centre.
"One by one they have systematically attacked the very foundations of our constitutional democracy, the judicial system, the freedom of the press, accountability of government and the human rights of all citizens."
She said the arrogance of the current government was "breathtaking". It was acting with impunity and abusing "the resources of the state for the enrichment of a party, themselves and their friends".
"The arms deal, Nkandla, the Guptas, the list of these abuses goes on and on," she said to a cheering crowd.
The former activist and businessperson was welcomed by cheers from the crowd who arrived to support her new party.
More than a thousand people, mostly dressed in white T-shirts with Agang SA printed on them, listened intently and cheered as Ramphele spoke about problems facing South Africa.
For the past five months Ramphele visited communities around the country listening to people's concerns.
"We are here to begin the restoration of the promise of our great nation and to offer the hope of a better future for South Africa," she told the crowd.
"There is a desperate need for change."
Leaders failed to deliver
After nearly 20 years, the country's leaders failed to deliver on the promise of freedom, she said. Adding that it was too long to wait for jobs, education and healthcare.
Ramphele said the country had reached a crossroads.
"I for one do not want to think about where we will be in five years time unless we change course. Imagine five more years of corruption," she said as the crowd shouted "no".
"Imagine five more years of young people being lost from the education system and the economy. Five more years of millions of people entering the workforce but not having jobs. Five more years of non-functioning hospitals and clinics."
However, the country had potential and it was this, according to Ramphele, which inspired her at the age of 65 to enter South African politics and start Agang SA.
During Ramphele's speech the mostly youthful crowd, started shouting "enough is enough".
She introduced her campaign team calling them world-class.
Nkosinathi Solomon, who joined Agang from Absa, was the campaign director.
Also on the team were Dr Mills Soko, director of policy, from the University of Cape Town's graduate school of business, Thabo Leshilo, a former Sowetan editor as director of communications, Zohra Dawood as director of fundraising and Rorisang Tshabalala as deputy director of field management.
Elective conference
Ramphele also announced that Vanessa Hani, former South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani's daughter, would join her team to focus on mobilising women as part of the field management team.
Moeketsi Mosola joined as political director and would lead the creation of the party's political leadership.
Ramphele said Agang would hold an elective conference towards the end of the year.
"There are many experienced parliamentarians and battle hardened activists who will join our national and provincial leadership in the coming months," she said.
"We will strike a balance between old hands and many new faces." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
"One by one they have systematically attacked the very foundations of our constitutional democracy, the judicial system, the freedom of the press, accountability of government and the human rights of all citizens."
She said the arrogance of the current government was "breathtaking". It was acting with impunity and abusing "the resources of the state for the enrichment of a party, themselves and their friends".
"The arms deal, Nkandla, the Guptas, the list of these abuses goes on and on," she said to a cheering crowd.
The former activist and businessperson was welcomed by cheers from the crowd who arrived to support her new party.
More than a thousand people, mostly dressed in white T-shirts with Agang SA printed on them, listened intently and cheered as Ramphele spoke about problems facing South Africa.
For the past five months Ramphele visited communities around the country listening to people's concerns.
"We are here to begin the restoration of the promise of our great nation and to offer the hope of a better future for South Africa," she told the crowd.
"There is a desperate need for change."
Leaders failed to deliver
After nearly 20 years, the country's leaders failed to deliver on the promise of freedom, she said. Adding that it was too long to wait for jobs, education and healthcare.
Ramphele said the country had reached a crossroads.
"I for one do not want to think about where we will be in five years time unless we change course. Imagine five more years of corruption," she said as the crowd shouted "no".
"Imagine five more years of young people being lost from the education system and the economy. Five more years of millions of people entering the workforce but not having jobs. Five more years of non-functioning hospitals and clinics."
However, the country had potential and it was this, according to Ramphele, which inspired her at the age of 65 to enter South African politics and start Agang SA.
During Ramphele's speech the mostly youthful crowd, started shouting "enough is enough".
She introduced her campaign team calling them world-class.
Nkosinathi Solomon, who joined Agang from Absa, was the campaign director.
Also on the team were Dr Mills Soko, director of policy, from the University of Cape Town's graduate school of business, Thabo Leshilo, a former Sowetan editor as director of communications, Zohra Dawood as director of fundraising and Rorisang Tshabalala as deputy director of field management.
Elective conference
Ramphele also announced that Vanessa Hani, former South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani's daughter, would join her team to focus on mobilising women as part of the field management team.
Moeketsi Mosola joined as political director and would lead the creation of the party's political leadership.
Ramphele said Agang would hold an elective conference towards the end of the year.
"There are many experienced parliamentarians and battle hardened activists who will join our national and provincial leadership in the coming months," she said.
"We will strike a balance between old hands and many new faces." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Africa: The Landgrabbers - the New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth
In his recent book, Fred Pearce examines the dynamics behind large-scale land acquisitions and their social, environmental and developmental effects.
"Buy land. They are not making it anymore."
This statement uttered more than one hundred years ago by Mark Twain still holds a sad and powerful truth and makes a telling start for Fred Pearce's account in The Landgrabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth about the struggle over the Earth's most precious resources: land and water.
In the book, the reader is taken on a whirlwind tour around the globe to witness, through Pearce's eyes, a new kind of colonialism driven not by countries, but by powerful private capitalists.
We encounter figures such as George Soros and Richard Branson; we learn about the effects of the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia; we find out why President Robert Mugabe's land seizures in Zimbabwe were not so bad after all for small-scale farmers; and we see how the global financial crisis and the intricate mechanisms of stock market speculations in commodities exacerbate the problem.
Pearce's passion and outrage about the selling off of communal resources shines through the book.
Each chapter is dedicated to a certain country, where protagonists change, yet the storyline stays the same: governments around the globe grant large concessions to wily investors in the hope of advancing their economies but displace and disadvantage large parts of their own population in the process.
As Mike Ogg, an agriculture specialist from Swaziland, told Think Africa Press: "I fundamentally believe that agriculture can lead development in Africa. The quandary is: How do you create a win-win situation where investors and the community benefit?"
Pearce's dystopia
Pearce presents a bleak picture of increasingly prevalent 'land grabs' by corporations for agriculture or resource exploitation as well as by well-meaning environmentalists for so-called "green grabs".
This is, Pearce argues, encircling the last remaining habitats of indigenous peoples and the landless poor, destroying their past and forever altering their future.
Pearce mixes this narrative with historical references to imperialism and colonialism giving the impression of a continuous cycle of exploitation. But his greatest achievement in the book is to give those exploited a voice.
He recounts their stories in numerous interviews, as well as talking to those involved in the land acquisitions and a variety of experts.
Pearce concludes that the bulk of the blame rests with foreign buyers though it is crucial to recognise that most deals are also pursued by respective governments which may give out large land concessions, tax breaks and other incentives to draw foreign capital into their country in the first place. And politicians are not only accomplices, but often also carve out deals in return for money or land for themselves.
This is enabled by an environment in which laws are either non-existent or easily circumvented. As Graziano da Silva, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, notes: "It appears to be like the Wild West and we need a sheriff and law in place."
Proposing solutions
Although Pearce does not go so far as to propose possible solutions, there is a range of opinion and ideas as to how to begin to tackle the problem.
Olivier De Schutter, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, has suggested that when national governments are unable or unwilling to devise regulations, the international community should step in to monitor whether the rights of land users are being respected. Oxfam's recent report 'Our Land, Our Lives' highlights the pivotal role of the World Bank as an advisor to governments in reforming their laws.
But this is easier said than done. As a representative from USAID in Dar es Salaam admitted to Think Africa Press, "Land tenure, we know, is at the heart of many problems as it is difficult for poor people to feed themselves with limited and insecure access to land, but we are not touching this subject, because it's too contentious and complicated".
Another way the negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions could be mitigated is through emerging sustainability standards.
The World Bank and its private sector funding arm, the International Finance Corporation, have strict regulations regarding social and environmental sustainability. These include standards on development-induced displacement and there are growing calls for wider implementation of such regulations.
An example of a private sector-driven initiative is Bonsucro, a certification scheme which aims to ensure companies involved in the production of sugar and ethanol from sugarcane meet environmental, social and business standards.
With consumers believed to be increasingly concerned about the impacts of the goods they buy, the Bonsucro certification is meant to reassure buyers that companies are acting in sustainable ways and taking account of human rights and pollution control.
Moving forwards
Pearce acknowledges these developments in his last chapter where he analyses some of the attempts at solutions though he does not put forward his own. Nevertheless, Pearce's book is a worthwhile read. His writing style is highly engaging and reveals the duplicity of investors and interest groups.
He not only presents complicated and contentious issues such as the correlation of Wall Street speculations and rising food prices in an accessible manner, but also masterfully interweaves stories and issues across countries and continents achieving a well-researched, logical and informative account.
Although Pearce's focus lies on the problems at hand rather than solutions, the book certainly contributes to a growing awareness about the issues and will hopefully inspire others to find suitable ways to move forwards.
Katharina Neureiter holds an MSc in History of International Relations from the London School of Economics specialising in African colonial history and war cultures. She is currently working as a consultant in East Africa and blogs at hearabout.wordpress.com.
Source: All Africa
"Buy land. They are not making it anymore."
This statement uttered more than one hundred years ago by Mark Twain still holds a sad and powerful truth and makes a telling start for Fred Pearce's account in The Landgrabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth about the struggle over the Earth's most precious resources: land and water.
In the book, the reader is taken on a whirlwind tour around the globe to witness, through Pearce's eyes, a new kind of colonialism driven not by countries, but by powerful private capitalists.
We encounter figures such as George Soros and Richard Branson; we learn about the effects of the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia; we find out why President Robert Mugabe's land seizures in Zimbabwe were not so bad after all for small-scale farmers; and we see how the global financial crisis and the intricate mechanisms of stock market speculations in commodities exacerbate the problem.
Pearce's passion and outrage about the selling off of communal resources shines through the book.
Each chapter is dedicated to a certain country, where protagonists change, yet the storyline stays the same: governments around the globe grant large concessions to wily investors in the hope of advancing their economies but displace and disadvantage large parts of their own population in the process.
As Mike Ogg, an agriculture specialist from Swaziland, told Think Africa Press: "I fundamentally believe that agriculture can lead development in Africa. The quandary is: How do you create a win-win situation where investors and the community benefit?"
Pearce's dystopia
Pearce presents a bleak picture of increasingly prevalent 'land grabs' by corporations for agriculture or resource exploitation as well as by well-meaning environmentalists for so-called "green grabs".
This is, Pearce argues, encircling the last remaining habitats of indigenous peoples and the landless poor, destroying their past and forever altering their future.
Pearce mixes this narrative with historical references to imperialism and colonialism giving the impression of a continuous cycle of exploitation. But his greatest achievement in the book is to give those exploited a voice.
He recounts their stories in numerous interviews, as well as talking to those involved in the land acquisitions and a variety of experts.
Pearce concludes that the bulk of the blame rests with foreign buyers though it is crucial to recognise that most deals are also pursued by respective governments which may give out large land concessions, tax breaks and other incentives to draw foreign capital into their country in the first place. And politicians are not only accomplices, but often also carve out deals in return for money or land for themselves.
This is enabled by an environment in which laws are either non-existent or easily circumvented. As Graziano da Silva, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, notes: "It appears to be like the Wild West and we need a sheriff and law in place."
Proposing solutions
Although Pearce does not go so far as to propose possible solutions, there is a range of opinion and ideas as to how to begin to tackle the problem.
Olivier De Schutter, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, has suggested that when national governments are unable or unwilling to devise regulations, the international community should step in to monitor whether the rights of land users are being respected. Oxfam's recent report 'Our Land, Our Lives' highlights the pivotal role of the World Bank as an advisor to governments in reforming their laws.
But this is easier said than done. As a representative from USAID in Dar es Salaam admitted to Think Africa Press, "Land tenure, we know, is at the heart of many problems as it is difficult for poor people to feed themselves with limited and insecure access to land, but we are not touching this subject, because it's too contentious and complicated".
Another way the negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions could be mitigated is through emerging sustainability standards.
The World Bank and its private sector funding arm, the International Finance Corporation, have strict regulations regarding social and environmental sustainability. These include standards on development-induced displacement and there are growing calls for wider implementation of such regulations.
An example of a private sector-driven initiative is Bonsucro, a certification scheme which aims to ensure companies involved in the production of sugar and ethanol from sugarcane meet environmental, social and business standards.
With consumers believed to be increasingly concerned about the impacts of the goods they buy, the Bonsucro certification is meant to reassure buyers that companies are acting in sustainable ways and taking account of human rights and pollution control.
Moving forwards
Pearce acknowledges these developments in his last chapter where he analyses some of the attempts at solutions though he does not put forward his own. Nevertheless, Pearce's book is a worthwhile read. His writing style is highly engaging and reveals the duplicity of investors and interest groups.
He not only presents complicated and contentious issues such as the correlation of Wall Street speculations and rising food prices in an accessible manner, but also masterfully interweaves stories and issues across countries and continents achieving a well-researched, logical and informative account.
Although Pearce's focus lies on the problems at hand rather than solutions, the book certainly contributes to a growing awareness about the issues and will hopefully inspire others to find suitable ways to move forwards.
Katharina Neureiter holds an MSc in History of International Relations from the London School of Economics specialising in African colonial history and war cultures. She is currently working as a consultant in East Africa and blogs at hearabout.wordpress.com.
Source: All Africa
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Dalai Lama's visa delay to South Africa 'unlawful'
South Africa's government acted unlawfully in failing to give the Dalai Lama a visa in time for a planned visit last year, a court has ruled.
Tibet's spiritual leader was forced to cancel plans to attend Archbishop Desmond Tutu's 80th birthday celebrations in October 2011.
The Supreme Court of Appeal said the former home affairs minister had "unreasonably delayed her decision".
The government denied it had bowed to pressure from China to block the trip.
Stalling tactics
The Supreme Court of Appeal was hearing an appeal application by two opposition parties - the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the Congress of the People (Cope) - about the issue. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said the failure to grant the Dalai Lama a visa was a disgrace
Earlier, the Western Cape High Court had dismissed the case, the South Africa Press Association reports. Archbishop Tutu was furious about the visa delay for his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner and accused the government of behaving "worse than the apartheid government".
According to the AFP news agency, the Supreme Court of Appeal found no evidence that the government had actually made a decision not to grant a visa, but did detect stalling tactics.
"What is justified by the evidence is an inference that the matter was deliberately delayed so as to avoid a decision," the news agency quotes the judgment as saying.
The court said that former Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma "was not entitled to deliberately procrastinate", South Africa's City Press newspaper reports.
Ms Dlamini-Zuma, who is President Jacob Zuma's ex-wife, now heads the Africa Union.
The Dalai Lama eventually delivered a lecture at Archbishop Tutu's birthday celebrations via a video link.
Source: BBC News
Tibet's spiritual leader was forced to cancel plans to attend Archbishop Desmond Tutu's 80th birthday celebrations in October 2011.
The Supreme Court of Appeal said the former home affairs minister had "unreasonably delayed her decision".
The government denied it had bowed to pressure from China to block the trip.
Stalling tactics
The Supreme Court of Appeal was hearing an appeal application by two opposition parties - the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the Congress of the People (Cope) - about the issue. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said the failure to grant the Dalai Lama a visa was a disgrace
Earlier, the Western Cape High Court had dismissed the case, the South Africa Press Association reports. Archbishop Tutu was furious about the visa delay for his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner and accused the government of behaving "worse than the apartheid government".
According to the AFP news agency, the Supreme Court of Appeal found no evidence that the government had actually made a decision not to grant a visa, but did detect stalling tactics.
"What is justified by the evidence is an inference that the matter was deliberately delayed so as to avoid a decision," the news agency quotes the judgment as saying.
The court said that former Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma "was not entitled to deliberately procrastinate", South Africa's City Press newspaper reports.
Ms Dlamini-Zuma, who is President Jacob Zuma's ex-wife, now heads the Africa Union.
The Dalai Lama eventually delivered a lecture at Archbishop Tutu's birthday celebrations via a video link.
Source: BBC News
Uganda: Human Rights Defenders and Land Ownership
Northern Uganda is rising from the debris of a long conflict involving the rebel Lord's Resistance Movement. Many challenges remain especially on land issues. But human rights defenders are trying to help.
Lira Town, situated some 350km from Kampala to the north, is an area deeply affected by the Lord's Resistance Army conflict that wrecked Uganda from 1986 until the Juba talks (2006-2008), marking the beginning of the end for Joseph Kony and the rebels in Uganda.
It was the start of a peace process that ultimately led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011 and also marked the beginning of a decline of the LRA in northern Uganda, forcing them out of the bases they had been occupying in southern Sudan, last seen in the Eastern Congo or the Central African Republic.
These days there is a lot less urgency for those internally displaced who had fled rural villages to seek sanctuary in towns from the violence. Lira town now thrives with bustle of commercial trade in its compact town centre.
The most talked about issues I encountered focussed on one central problem that's on the rise right across Uganda: land ownership.
In discussion with the Deputy District Police Commander and the District Office of Prosecutions it emerged that land ownership or land disputes were behind nearly all of the criminal cases and violations of human rights in Lira district.
This may not come as a surprise when Uganda's population has risen tenfold to since independence in 1962. The issue has been exacerbated by the discovery of oil reserves in Hoima District and new cases of forced evictions and land grabbing are reported on an almost daily basis.
The throngs of men and women I witnessed seated outside the Lira courts pending hearings on land issues, particularly over ownership by people displaced during conflict, all seek to reclaim land they previously worked on.
The court system is simply unable to cope with the demands on it. The Officer of Prosecutions bemoaned the lack of human resources at his disposal.
The state is bound to provide lawyers to represent the deceased in any court case but its failure to pay lawyers for their work has led to many refusing to take up these positions, bringing the justice process to a grinding halt.
Faced with a flailing system, a number of individuals seek alternative solutions which are not always legal.
Mob justice - where citizens take the law into their own hands - is on the rise in Uganda and it may increase as land disputes keep happening and formal crime and punishment structures fail to address them.
Just as mob justice can never be a workable alternative, removing rights, such as the right to a fair trial in the process, the same could be said of a failing judicial system.
Lobbying for its reform and greater accountability from the authorities is where human rights defenders (HRDs) are concentrating their efforts in looking to overcome this huge challenge.
WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER? AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
A Human Rights Defender (HRD) was formalised as a concept at the international level by the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which guarantees every individual's right to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
In practice HRDs extend from individuals, such as lawyers and social workers, to organisations that work on issues relating to human rights and even to instruments of the state.
In fact the chief HRDs in Ugandan society, at least in theory, are the police, prison service and judiciary, as they are mandated by the Constitution to protect and promote human rights. However they are often involved in abuses in the Ugandan case.
The key message for governments is that HRDs are legitimate actors, working in the interests of the state to promote and protect fundamental freedoms that all citizens should be entitled to.
The state should recognise this and create an enabling environment for their work, which includes protection where required and facilitation where it is mandated to so
The case studies that follow are based on interviews with men, women and persons with disabilities that I encountered, outlining just some of the challenges and success stories of HRDs in Lira.
CASE STUDY 1: LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS
Semmy Apili, sharing her experience during a training workshop, said she won a court case and regained her land because of the will her late husband was able to write.
Even on issues such as HIV and AIDS the issue of land could not be avoided. Martin Ongune, Project Coordinator at the Lira Development Network for People Living with HIV Aids (LIDFOPHAN), remarked upon the need for support in 'will writing' in order to support the families of victims:
'There is a need here for legal advisers to assist the poorer members of society in writing wills. It will ensure a degree of security for families who may lose relatives because of HIV and AIDS.
We would also welcome training that would empower members of the community with these skills and enable a more sustainable solution.'
The organisation has, through its own networks, over 8,000 members and it works not only to provide support to victims of HIV and AIDS but also to the families of those victims. Ensuring that livelihoods can be guaranteed is an important part of this support process and while there is a need, the challenge of bringing about that change remains.
CASE STUDY 2: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Uganda suffered both physical and mental trauma; issues that still need to be addressed. In meeting with Joseph Kasungo at the Freidis Rehabilitation and Disability Centre I encountered anger at the lack of support that directly targeted the issue of disability.
He remained frustrated that it continues to be something of a side issue, incorporated into other projects or initiatives but not given the priority that it should be. Social stigma remains attached to disability in Uganda and mental health issues are seen as human weakness rather than health issues that require treatment.
The Centre has the facilities to tackle these issues, with a fully equipped clinic and on-site psychologist, but its major challenge is reintegrating people back into society as equals.
CASE STUDY 3: EMPOWERING WOMEN
Diana Oroma of Women's Peace Initiative (WPI) passionately outlined the challenges facing women in Lira District but suggested that progress was being made.
Her organisation has played a key role in encouraging women to seek medical attention to be treated for victims of sexual abuse. In 2010 over 600 women were treated by a WPI initiative. Fifty of these women had such serious afflictions they required surgery.
There is no shortage of challenges facing the women who do come forward for treatment:
The stigma attached to being sexually violated or raped can often led to exclusion or people being ostracised from the community.
Cultural issues with regards to relationships between men and women are problematic. A lack of education about female sexual health, inclusive of men, means that cultural norms of women being the bearer of children remain strong and this can impact on recovery after treatment.
Women Peace Clubs have been set up by WPI in an effort to change the attitudes of the community. They have been successful in utilising women who have been treated talk to come and tell other women about their positive experiences.
Efforts have also been made to engage men in the education process. Progress, however, is slow as Diana outlined an example of a man coming to a workshop and agreeing that he would show more respect for his wife's sexual health. Yet a week later WPI learned that the woman had been heavily beaten by her husband for bringing shame upon him and their family.
This kind of example shows that changing (and challenging!) attitudes will be a gradual task, but initiatives being run by WPCs are the kind of projects best suited to bring about that change.
Where to from here for human rights defenders: some reflections on the local, national and international dimensions
At the local government level in Lira officials are working with civil society groups (such as the Lira NGO Forum) to enhance and protect human rights. Disputes over land and an ill-equipped judiciary for dealing with complaints being brought to its door, however, are challenges facing all Ugandan HRDs rather than just in Lira.
While some freedoms are being afforded to Ugandans there are still restrictions being placed on journalists in carrying out their work, women are still often regarded as second class citizens and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans are almost non-existence.
In recent weeks a number of members of parliament have come out in support of the retrogressive Anti-Homosexuality Bill, touted by the Speaker of Parliament as a "Christmas gift" to Ugandans, which would make engaging in homosexual activities punishable by death. This is incredibly worrying for human rights standards and protections in Uganda.
Parliamentarians are voting on this bill in the coming days before 15th December, despite that Uganda holds a seat on the UN Human Rights Council until the end of 2013.
In her remarks addressing the UN Assembly in New York, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Margaret Sekaggya, emphasized the constraints faced by defenders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights due to criminalization of same-sex relations in over 75 countries worldwide, as well as recent legislative moves to purportedly curb promotion of homosexuality.
Although the recent decision of Malawi to suspend its anti-gay legislation is a small ray of hope it should be recognised and applauded as a step forward. www.developmenteducation.ie will be following these stories more closely in the months ahead.
Lastly, the creation of a Human Right Committee, made up of members of the Uganda parliament and tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of the government's compliance with human rights standards and protections is a very positive step. In theory, this should support the promotion and protection of those working to protect and stimulate human rights at the community level too.
Overall then, this is a refreshing turn for Ugandans struggling for a better life and looking to hold their politicians and public officials to a higher standard.
Throughout my field visits in Lira and elsewhere I have found the enthusiasm and commitment to such values remains undiminished. There are, of course, many challenges left but changes in attitudes at the community level are being observed.
This is welcome as the region gradually turns it focus away from a past ravaged by conflict to one embracing social and economic growth and development.
- Jamie Hitchen currently lives and works in Kampala, Uganda. Having obtained a Masters in African Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) he now works for the Human Rights Centre Uganda (www.hrcug.org). This article was first published by Irish global education website www.developmentEducation.ie
Source: All Africa
Lira Town, situated some 350km from Kampala to the north, is an area deeply affected by the Lord's Resistance Army conflict that wrecked Uganda from 1986 until the Juba talks (2006-2008), marking the beginning of the end for Joseph Kony and the rebels in Uganda.
It was the start of a peace process that ultimately led to the creation of South Sudan in 2011 and also marked the beginning of a decline of the LRA in northern Uganda, forcing them out of the bases they had been occupying in southern Sudan, last seen in the Eastern Congo or the Central African Republic.
These days there is a lot less urgency for those internally displaced who had fled rural villages to seek sanctuary in towns from the violence. Lira town now thrives with bustle of commercial trade in its compact town centre.
The most talked about issues I encountered focussed on one central problem that's on the rise right across Uganda: land ownership.
In discussion with the Deputy District Police Commander and the District Office of Prosecutions it emerged that land ownership or land disputes were behind nearly all of the criminal cases and violations of human rights in Lira district.
This may not come as a surprise when Uganda's population has risen tenfold to since independence in 1962. The issue has been exacerbated by the discovery of oil reserves in Hoima District and new cases of forced evictions and land grabbing are reported on an almost daily basis.
The throngs of men and women I witnessed seated outside the Lira courts pending hearings on land issues, particularly over ownership by people displaced during conflict, all seek to reclaim land they previously worked on.
The court system is simply unable to cope with the demands on it. The Officer of Prosecutions bemoaned the lack of human resources at his disposal.
The state is bound to provide lawyers to represent the deceased in any court case but its failure to pay lawyers for their work has led to many refusing to take up these positions, bringing the justice process to a grinding halt.
Faced with a flailing system, a number of individuals seek alternative solutions which are not always legal.
Mob justice - where citizens take the law into their own hands - is on the rise in Uganda and it may increase as land disputes keep happening and formal crime and punishment structures fail to address them.
Just as mob justice can never be a workable alternative, removing rights, such as the right to a fair trial in the process, the same could be said of a failing judicial system.
Lobbying for its reform and greater accountability from the authorities is where human rights defenders (HRDs) are concentrating their efforts in looking to overcome this huge challenge.
WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER? AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
A Human Rights Defender (HRD) was formalised as a concept at the international level by the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which guarantees every individual's right to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
In practice HRDs extend from individuals, such as lawyers and social workers, to organisations that work on issues relating to human rights and even to instruments of the state.
In fact the chief HRDs in Ugandan society, at least in theory, are the police, prison service and judiciary, as they are mandated by the Constitution to protect and promote human rights. However they are often involved in abuses in the Ugandan case.
The key message for governments is that HRDs are legitimate actors, working in the interests of the state to promote and protect fundamental freedoms that all citizens should be entitled to.
The state should recognise this and create an enabling environment for their work, which includes protection where required and facilitation where it is mandated to so
The case studies that follow are based on interviews with men, women and persons with disabilities that I encountered, outlining just some of the challenges and success stories of HRDs in Lira.
CASE STUDY 1: LIVING WITH HIV AND AIDS
Semmy Apili, sharing her experience during a training workshop, said she won a court case and regained her land because of the will her late husband was able to write.
Even on issues such as HIV and AIDS the issue of land could not be avoided. Martin Ongune, Project Coordinator at the Lira Development Network for People Living with HIV Aids (LIDFOPHAN), remarked upon the need for support in 'will writing' in order to support the families of victims:
'There is a need here for legal advisers to assist the poorer members of society in writing wills. It will ensure a degree of security for families who may lose relatives because of HIV and AIDS.
We would also welcome training that would empower members of the community with these skills and enable a more sustainable solution.'
The organisation has, through its own networks, over 8,000 members and it works not only to provide support to victims of HIV and AIDS but also to the families of those victims. Ensuring that livelihoods can be guaranteed is an important part of this support process and while there is a need, the challenge of bringing about that change remains.
CASE STUDY 2: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Uganda suffered both physical and mental trauma; issues that still need to be addressed. In meeting with Joseph Kasungo at the Freidis Rehabilitation and Disability Centre I encountered anger at the lack of support that directly targeted the issue of disability.
He remained frustrated that it continues to be something of a side issue, incorporated into other projects or initiatives but not given the priority that it should be. Social stigma remains attached to disability in Uganda and mental health issues are seen as human weakness rather than health issues that require treatment.
The Centre has the facilities to tackle these issues, with a fully equipped clinic and on-site psychologist, but its major challenge is reintegrating people back into society as equals.
CASE STUDY 3: EMPOWERING WOMEN
Diana Oroma of Women's Peace Initiative (WPI) passionately outlined the challenges facing women in Lira District but suggested that progress was being made.
Her organisation has played a key role in encouraging women to seek medical attention to be treated for victims of sexual abuse. In 2010 over 600 women were treated by a WPI initiative. Fifty of these women had such serious afflictions they required surgery.
There is no shortage of challenges facing the women who do come forward for treatment:
The stigma attached to being sexually violated or raped can often led to exclusion or people being ostracised from the community.
Cultural issues with regards to relationships between men and women are problematic. A lack of education about female sexual health, inclusive of men, means that cultural norms of women being the bearer of children remain strong and this can impact on recovery after treatment.
Women Peace Clubs have been set up by WPI in an effort to change the attitudes of the community. They have been successful in utilising women who have been treated talk to come and tell other women about their positive experiences.
Efforts have also been made to engage men in the education process. Progress, however, is slow as Diana outlined an example of a man coming to a workshop and agreeing that he would show more respect for his wife's sexual health. Yet a week later WPI learned that the woman had been heavily beaten by her husband for bringing shame upon him and their family.
This kind of example shows that changing (and challenging!) attitudes will be a gradual task, but initiatives being run by WPCs are the kind of projects best suited to bring about that change.
Where to from here for human rights defenders: some reflections on the local, national and international dimensions
At the local government level in Lira officials are working with civil society groups (such as the Lira NGO Forum) to enhance and protect human rights. Disputes over land and an ill-equipped judiciary for dealing with complaints being brought to its door, however, are challenges facing all Ugandan HRDs rather than just in Lira.
While some freedoms are being afforded to Ugandans there are still restrictions being placed on journalists in carrying out their work, women are still often regarded as second class citizens and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans are almost non-existence.
In recent weeks a number of members of parliament have come out in support of the retrogressive Anti-Homosexuality Bill, touted by the Speaker of Parliament as a "Christmas gift" to Ugandans, which would make engaging in homosexual activities punishable by death. This is incredibly worrying for human rights standards and protections in Uganda.
Parliamentarians are voting on this bill in the coming days before 15th December, despite that Uganda holds a seat on the UN Human Rights Council until the end of 2013.
In her remarks addressing the UN Assembly in New York, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Margaret Sekaggya, emphasized the constraints faced by defenders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights due to criminalization of same-sex relations in over 75 countries worldwide, as well as recent legislative moves to purportedly curb promotion of homosexuality.
Although the recent decision of Malawi to suspend its anti-gay legislation is a small ray of hope it should be recognised and applauded as a step forward. www.developmenteducation.ie will be following these stories more closely in the months ahead.
Lastly, the creation of a Human Right Committee, made up of members of the Uganda parliament and tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of the government's compliance with human rights standards and protections is a very positive step. In theory, this should support the promotion and protection of those working to protect and stimulate human rights at the community level too.
Overall then, this is a refreshing turn for Ugandans struggling for a better life and looking to hold their politicians and public officials to a higher standard.
Throughout my field visits in Lira and elsewhere I have found the enthusiasm and commitment to such values remains undiminished. There are, of course, many challenges left but changes in attitudes at the community level are being observed.
This is welcome as the region gradually turns it focus away from a past ravaged by conflict to one embracing social and economic growth and development.
- Jamie Hitchen currently lives and works in Kampala, Uganda. Having obtained a Masters in African Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) he now works for the Human Rights Centre Uganda (www.hrcug.org). This article was first published by Irish global education website www.developmentEducation.ie
Source: All Africa
Friday, November 23, 2012
Kenya: Investigate Attack on Rights Activist
The Kenyan authorities should promptly and thoroughly investigate a serious physical assault on Okiya Omtatah Okoiti, a prominent human rights activist, on the evening of November 9, 2012, and bring appropriate charges, Human Rights Watch, ARTICLE 19, and East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project said today. The organizations expressed concern over the apparent lack of a serious police investigation two weeks after the violent attack on an outspoken critic of the government.
Omtatah, executive director of Kenyans for Justice and Development (KEJUDE) Trust, a local NGO that advocates for transparency and accountability, was attacked by two unidentified men in central Nairobi. He lost six teeth and suffered serious injuries to his face and the back of his head, which required surgery. Omtatah told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that the attackers demanded that he withdraw a lawsuit he filed to demand accountability in the procurement of biometric voter registration (BVR) kits because of corruption associated with the process.
“This vicious attack was clearly meant not just to intimidate Omtatah but to seriously injure him – and perhaps even to kill him,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The aim seems to be to stop his work on corruption in the procurement of biometric voter registration kits for the upcoming elections.”
From a bed in a Nairobi hospital, Omtatah described the attack:
The two gentlemen walked behind me in the light rain at around 8:30 p.m. As we neared I&M Bank Building, one of them called out my name, “Omtatah,” and I responded, looked back, and we waved at each other pleasantly. I did not stop. Somehow they quickened up and one overtook me. The other stayed behind me. The one in front then turned to face me and he asked me in Kiswahili and in a very polite voice: “Will you withdraw the petition you have filed in the High Court over the procurement of the biometric voter registration kit?” I responded in English with a strong “No!”
He immediately flashed something that looked like a short, thick silver stick and struck me in the face. Almost simultaneously the other one struck me with a heavy blunt object at the back of my head. I heard an exploding sound in my head as I fell in the rain, gravely injured. They stole nothing from me. I had two mobile phones and cash.
Omtatah said a police investigator had visited him in the hospital but only to take the basic facts of the attack. They did not ask him for a description of the attackers. Police at Nairobi’s Central Police Station told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that they could not begin an investigation while Omtatah was undergoing treatment.
“Omtatah has been the sole voice of concern in the problematic biometric voter kit procurement process,” said Henry Maina, director of ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa. “The authorities need to get to the bottom of the procurement process and protect Omtatah’s right to seek the truth and they need to hold everyone responsible for corruption and for this attack accountable as well.”
Kenya’s 2007 elections were marked by controversy and violence, resulting in more than 1,000 deaths countrywide and causing more than 600,000 people to flee their homes. The problem was partly due to flaws in the integrity of the electoral process, which undermined confidence in the results. A commission of inquiry looking at the elections recommended a shift from the manual voter registration system to an electronic system to fix problems with the voter register.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)is trying to introduce biometric voter registration kits to improve the process, but the procurement process has been fraught with controversy, with allegations of bribery, influence peddling, and irregularities in the tendering process. Last July the commission’s tender committee resigned to protest what it called external influences on the process and the IEBC. The biometric voter kit uses specific facial features to identify each voter during voting to prevent fraud.
The lowest bidder in the BVR tender, 4G Identity Solutions of India, was disqualified in August 2012. The company’s CEO, Sreeni Tripuraneni, said that the company was being punished for refusing to pay 30 million Kenyan shillings in bribes to senior officials in Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Ministry. In September 2012 the IEBC canceled the tender altogether, prompting an inquiry by a parliamentary committee. The IEBC Chairman, Isaack Hassan, told the committee that his commission had come “under immense pressure from external interests” who sought to influence the tender.
“Omtatah has been keeping the IEBC on its toes and, together with others, making sure the process is transparent and fair,” Maina said. “In the end, the credibility of Kenya’s electoral process is at stake.”
After the cancellation of the tender the Kenyan government took over the procurement process amid protests from some civil society groups about possible manipulation and implications for the independence of IEBC.
Omtatah’s KEJUDE and other civil society groups have raised concerns about the rising costs – from an initial 3.9 billion Kenyan shillings for 9,750 BVR kits under the IEBC to 9.6 billion Kenyan shillings for 1,500 BVR kits when the government took over. Omtatah went to court to stop the process over the alleged corruption. He filed detailed documents in court that appeared to show that Kenya would lose up to 4 billion Kenyan shillings in the deal.
The three organizations said Omtatah might be in danger if the authorities fail to assure his safety. Kenya has a responsibility to respect and protect the rights of human rights defenders, as contained in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, as well as to provide effective remedies for any violations of these rights. The government should urgently order a full and impartial investigation into the attack and prosecute those responsible.
“The authorities must investigate this vicious attack and bring those responsible to justice,” said Hassan Shire, executive director of East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project. “Activists need to be able to carry their work without the fear of violent repercussions.”
Source: Human Rights Watch
Omtatah, executive director of Kenyans for Justice and Development (KEJUDE) Trust, a local NGO that advocates for transparency and accountability, was attacked by two unidentified men in central Nairobi. He lost six teeth and suffered serious injuries to his face and the back of his head, which required surgery. Omtatah told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that the attackers demanded that he withdraw a lawsuit he filed to demand accountability in the procurement of biometric voter registration (BVR) kits because of corruption associated with the process.
“This vicious attack was clearly meant not just to intimidate Omtatah but to seriously injure him – and perhaps even to kill him,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The aim seems to be to stop his work on corruption in the procurement of biometric voter registration kits for the upcoming elections.”
From a bed in a Nairobi hospital, Omtatah described the attack:
The two gentlemen walked behind me in the light rain at around 8:30 p.m. As we neared I&M Bank Building, one of them called out my name, “Omtatah,” and I responded, looked back, and we waved at each other pleasantly. I did not stop. Somehow they quickened up and one overtook me. The other stayed behind me. The one in front then turned to face me and he asked me in Kiswahili and in a very polite voice: “Will you withdraw the petition you have filed in the High Court over the procurement of the biometric voter registration kit?” I responded in English with a strong “No!”
He immediately flashed something that looked like a short, thick silver stick and struck me in the face. Almost simultaneously the other one struck me with a heavy blunt object at the back of my head. I heard an exploding sound in my head as I fell in the rain, gravely injured. They stole nothing from me. I had two mobile phones and cash.
Omtatah said a police investigator had visited him in the hospital but only to take the basic facts of the attack. They did not ask him for a description of the attackers. Police at Nairobi’s Central Police Station told Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 that they could not begin an investigation while Omtatah was undergoing treatment.
“Omtatah has been the sole voice of concern in the problematic biometric voter kit procurement process,” said Henry Maina, director of ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa. “The authorities need to get to the bottom of the procurement process and protect Omtatah’s right to seek the truth and they need to hold everyone responsible for corruption and for this attack accountable as well.”
Kenya’s 2007 elections were marked by controversy and violence, resulting in more than 1,000 deaths countrywide and causing more than 600,000 people to flee their homes. The problem was partly due to flaws in the integrity of the electoral process, which undermined confidence in the results. A commission of inquiry looking at the elections recommended a shift from the manual voter registration system to an electronic system to fix problems with the voter register.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)is trying to introduce biometric voter registration kits to improve the process, but the procurement process has been fraught with controversy, with allegations of bribery, influence peddling, and irregularities in the tendering process. Last July the commission’s tender committee resigned to protest what it called external influences on the process and the IEBC. The biometric voter kit uses specific facial features to identify each voter during voting to prevent fraud.
The lowest bidder in the BVR tender, 4G Identity Solutions of India, was disqualified in August 2012. The company’s CEO, Sreeni Tripuraneni, said that the company was being punished for refusing to pay 30 million Kenyan shillings in bribes to senior officials in Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Ministry. In September 2012 the IEBC canceled the tender altogether, prompting an inquiry by a parliamentary committee. The IEBC Chairman, Isaack Hassan, told the committee that his commission had come “under immense pressure from external interests” who sought to influence the tender.
“Omtatah has been keeping the IEBC on its toes and, together with others, making sure the process is transparent and fair,” Maina said. “In the end, the credibility of Kenya’s electoral process is at stake.”
After the cancellation of the tender the Kenyan government took over the procurement process amid protests from some civil society groups about possible manipulation and implications for the independence of IEBC.
Omtatah’s KEJUDE and other civil society groups have raised concerns about the rising costs – from an initial 3.9 billion Kenyan shillings for 9,750 BVR kits under the IEBC to 9.6 billion Kenyan shillings for 1,500 BVR kits when the government took over. Omtatah went to court to stop the process over the alleged corruption. He filed detailed documents in court that appeared to show that Kenya would lose up to 4 billion Kenyan shillings in the deal.
The three organizations said Omtatah might be in danger if the authorities fail to assure his safety. Kenya has a responsibility to respect and protect the rights of human rights defenders, as contained in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, as well as to provide effective remedies for any violations of these rights. The government should urgently order a full and impartial investigation into the attack and prosecute those responsible.
“The authorities must investigate this vicious attack and bring those responsible to justice,” said Hassan Shire, executive director of East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project. “Activists need to be able to carry their work without the fear of violent repercussions.”
Source: Human Rights Watch
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
DR Congo: US Should Urge Rwanda to End M23 Support
The United States government should publicly support sanctions against Rwandan officials backing the armed group M23, which has been responsible for widespread war crimes in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. M23 rebels, whose commanders have been implicated in serious abuses, captured the city of Goma on November 20, 2012.
“The US government’s silence on Rwandan military support to the M23 rebels can no longer be justified given the overwhelming evidence of Rwanda’s role and the imminent threat to civilians around Goma,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The US government should support urgent sanctions against Rwandan officials who are backing M23 fighters responsible for serious abuses.”
Rwandan military support for the M23 rebels has been evident in their offensive that began on November 15, Human Rights Watch said. Several civilians living near the Rwandan border told Human Rights Watch that they saw hundreds of Rwandan army soldiers crossing the border from Rwanda into Congo at Njerima hill, Kasizi, and Kabuhanga in apparent support of M23 fighters. Human Rights Watch has also documented several incidents in which Rwandan and Congolese soldiers fired across the border from either side between November 16 and 20.
A draft of the final report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, soon to be published, alleges that the Rwandan government has provided “direct military support to M23 rebels” and that the “M23’s de facto chain of command includes General Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Rwandan Minister of Defense General James Kabarebe.” Ntaganda is on the UN sanctions list and is sought on arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Human Rights Watch has independently established that the Rwandan army has regularly provided significant military support to the M23, including overseeing operational planning, providing weapons and ammunition, recruiting at least 600 people in Rwanda to fight for the M23, training new recruits, and deploying Rwandan army troops to eastern Congo in direct support of M23 rebels.
Over the past seven months, Human Rights Watch has documented widespread war crimes by M23 rebels in eastern Congo, including summary executions, rapes, and forced recruitment, including of children. Rwandan officials may be complicit in war crimes through their military assistance to M23 forces throughout this period, Human Rights Watch said.
The draft UN Group of Experts’ report says that, “Rwandan officials coordinated the creation of the rebel movement as well as its major military operations” and “provided military support to M23 through permanent troop reinforcement and clandestine support by RDF [Rwandan Defence Forces] special units.” The Group of Experts found that “RDF commanders operated alongside M23 and provided logistical support during the July 2012 operations which enabled the capture of Bunagana, Rutshuru, Kiwanja and Rumangabo.” During these operations, “the rebels killed one [UN] peacekeeper at Bunagana and fired on the [UN peacekeeping] base at Kiwanja,” the report states.
The Group of Experts also documented support to the M23 by commanders of the Ugandan People’s Defence Force. While stating that “Rwandan officials exercise overall command and strategic planning for M23,” they note that “senior Government of Uganda officials have also provided support to M23 in the form of direct troop reinforcement in DRC territory, weapons deliveries, [and] technical assistance.”
“The fall of Goma to the M23 magnifies the security risks to civilians in eastern Congo,” Malinowski said. “As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US should press for sanctions that target not only the M23 but the foreign officials backing their atrocities.”
The Group of Experts has recommended individual sanctions against several Rwandan and Ugandan officials named in its report.
The M23’s latest offensive began on November 15 with M23 rebels fighting UN peacekeepers and Congolese army forces as the rebels progressed toward Goma. By the early afternoon of November 20, after heavy fighting in and around Goma, the M23 had taken control of key areas of Goma. Congolese army soldiers had fled the town, while UN peacekeepers were still present.
Human Rights Watch has received reports of at least 11 civilians killed and dozens of others wounded during the fighting in and around Goma since November 15. An estimated 80,000 people are newly displaced in the area around Goma, including an estimated 60,000 who were in a displacement camp about 10 kilometers outside Goma, according to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs.
“The US should endorse all measures that would enable UN sanctions against Rwandan officials who are assisting the M23,” Malinowski said. “All parties to the conflict should take urgent measures to protect civilians and stop abuses.”
Background on the M23
The M23 is largely made up of soldiers who took part in a mutiny from the Congolese army between late March and May 2012. Many were previously members of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a former Rwanda-backed rebel group that integrated into the Congolese army in January 2009. Bosco Ntaganda, who was then a general in the Congolese army, initially led the mutiny. In May, Col. Sultani Makenga, a former colleague of Ntaganda in the CNDP, announced he was beginning a separate mutiny. In the days that followed, Ntaganda and his forces joined Makenga. The new armed group called itself the M23. The M23 claimed the mutiny was to protest the Congolese government’s failure to fully implement the March 23, 2009 peace agreement (hence the name M23), which had integrated them into the Congolese army.
Some of the M23’s senior commanders have well-known histories of serious abuses, committed over the past decade in eastern Congo as they moved from one armed group to another. They have been responsible for ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions, and torture. Before the mutinies, at least five of the M23 leaders were on a UN black list of people with whom the UN would not collaborate due to their human rights records.
Ntaganda has been wanted by the International Criminal Court since 2006 for recruiting and using child soldiers in Ituri district in northeastern Congo in 2002 and 2003. In July, the court issued a second warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely murder, persecution based on ethnic grounds, rape, sexual slavery, and pillaging, also in connection with his activities in Ituri.
Human Rights Watch has documented numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity by troops under Ntaganda’s command, as well as by other M23 commanders, including Col. Makenga, Col. Innocent Zimurinda, Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, and Col. Innocent Kayna.
On November 12, 2012, the UN Security Council added Makenga to its list of individuals under sanctions, including an asset freeze and a travel ban. On November 13, the US imposed sanctions on Makenga, which includes an asset freeze and forbids American citizens from undertaking any transactions with him.
Source: Human Rights Watch
“The US government’s silence on Rwandan military support to the M23 rebels can no longer be justified given the overwhelming evidence of Rwanda’s role and the imminent threat to civilians around Goma,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The US government should support urgent sanctions against Rwandan officials who are backing M23 fighters responsible for serious abuses.”
Rwandan military support for the M23 rebels has been evident in their offensive that began on November 15, Human Rights Watch said. Several civilians living near the Rwandan border told Human Rights Watch that they saw hundreds of Rwandan army soldiers crossing the border from Rwanda into Congo at Njerima hill, Kasizi, and Kabuhanga in apparent support of M23 fighters. Human Rights Watch has also documented several incidents in which Rwandan and Congolese soldiers fired across the border from either side between November 16 and 20.
A draft of the final report of the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo, soon to be published, alleges that the Rwandan government has provided “direct military support to M23 rebels” and that the “M23’s de facto chain of command includes General Bosco Ntaganda and culminates with the Rwandan Minister of Defense General James Kabarebe.” Ntaganda is on the UN sanctions list and is sought on arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Human Rights Watch has independently established that the Rwandan army has regularly provided significant military support to the M23, including overseeing operational planning, providing weapons and ammunition, recruiting at least 600 people in Rwanda to fight for the M23, training new recruits, and deploying Rwandan army troops to eastern Congo in direct support of M23 rebels.
Over the past seven months, Human Rights Watch has documented widespread war crimes by M23 rebels in eastern Congo, including summary executions, rapes, and forced recruitment, including of children. Rwandan officials may be complicit in war crimes through their military assistance to M23 forces throughout this period, Human Rights Watch said.
The draft UN Group of Experts’ report says that, “Rwandan officials coordinated the creation of the rebel movement as well as its major military operations” and “provided military support to M23 through permanent troop reinforcement and clandestine support by RDF [Rwandan Defence Forces] special units.” The Group of Experts found that “RDF commanders operated alongside M23 and provided logistical support during the July 2012 operations which enabled the capture of Bunagana, Rutshuru, Kiwanja and Rumangabo.” During these operations, “the rebels killed one [UN] peacekeeper at Bunagana and fired on the [UN peacekeeping] base at Kiwanja,” the report states.
The Group of Experts also documented support to the M23 by commanders of the Ugandan People’s Defence Force. While stating that “Rwandan officials exercise overall command and strategic planning for M23,” they note that “senior Government of Uganda officials have also provided support to M23 in the form of direct troop reinforcement in DRC territory, weapons deliveries, [and] technical assistance.”
“The fall of Goma to the M23 magnifies the security risks to civilians in eastern Congo,” Malinowski said. “As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US should press for sanctions that target not only the M23 but the foreign officials backing their atrocities.”
The Group of Experts has recommended individual sanctions against several Rwandan and Ugandan officials named in its report.
The M23’s latest offensive began on November 15 with M23 rebels fighting UN peacekeepers and Congolese army forces as the rebels progressed toward Goma. By the early afternoon of November 20, after heavy fighting in and around Goma, the M23 had taken control of key areas of Goma. Congolese army soldiers had fled the town, while UN peacekeepers were still present.
Human Rights Watch has received reports of at least 11 civilians killed and dozens of others wounded during the fighting in and around Goma since November 15. An estimated 80,000 people are newly displaced in the area around Goma, including an estimated 60,000 who were in a displacement camp about 10 kilometers outside Goma, according to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs.
“The US should endorse all measures that would enable UN sanctions against Rwandan officials who are assisting the M23,” Malinowski said. “All parties to the conflict should take urgent measures to protect civilians and stop abuses.”
Background on the M23
The M23 is largely made up of soldiers who took part in a mutiny from the Congolese army between late March and May 2012. Many were previously members of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), a former Rwanda-backed rebel group that integrated into the Congolese army in January 2009. Bosco Ntaganda, who was then a general in the Congolese army, initially led the mutiny. In May, Col. Sultani Makenga, a former colleague of Ntaganda in the CNDP, announced he was beginning a separate mutiny. In the days that followed, Ntaganda and his forces joined Makenga. The new armed group called itself the M23. The M23 claimed the mutiny was to protest the Congolese government’s failure to fully implement the March 23, 2009 peace agreement (hence the name M23), which had integrated them into the Congolese army.
Some of the M23’s senior commanders have well-known histories of serious abuses, committed over the past decade in eastern Congo as they moved from one armed group to another. They have been responsible for ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions, and torture. Before the mutinies, at least five of the M23 leaders were on a UN black list of people with whom the UN would not collaborate due to their human rights records.
Ntaganda has been wanted by the International Criminal Court since 2006 for recruiting and using child soldiers in Ituri district in northeastern Congo in 2002 and 2003. In July, the court issued a second warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely murder, persecution based on ethnic grounds, rape, sexual slavery, and pillaging, also in connection with his activities in Ituri.
Human Rights Watch has documented numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity by troops under Ntaganda’s command, as well as by other M23 commanders, including Col. Makenga, Col. Innocent Zimurinda, Col. Baudouin Ngaruye, and Col. Innocent Kayna.
On November 12, 2012, the UN Security Council added Makenga to its list of individuals under sanctions, including an asset freeze and a travel ban. On November 13, the US imposed sanctions on Makenga, which includes an asset freeze and forbids American citizens from undertaking any transactions with him.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
SOUTH AFRICA TO RATIFY INTERNATIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS COVENANT
South African Human Rights Groups welcome Cabinet’s approval of South Africa’s ratification of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Almost eighteen years after the South African government signed the ICESCR, Cabinet has approved that South Africa will ratify the ICESCR. This important decision to ratify, which means that the ICESCR will be legally binding, was included in a statement issued yesterday on Cabinet’s ordinary meeting held in Pretoria on 10 October 2012. The Cabinet statement describes how the ICESCR is a “key international treaty which seeks to encourage State Parties to address challenges of inequality, unemployment and poverty, which are critical to the strategic goals of governments.”
The ICESCR, together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, constitutes the International Bill of Rights. The ICESCR has been ratifed by over 160 states since it was adopted in 1966, 48 of which are African states and 11 of which are member states of SADC. South Africa ratified the ICCPR in 1998, and its current ratification of the ICESCR will unambiguously signal its commitment to be legally bound by the full range of human rights recognised under international law. In its statement, Cabinet indicates that the recommendation to ratify the ICESCR will be tabled in Parliament for ratification in line with Section 231(2) of the South African Constitution.
Civil society organisations have been calling for many years for the South African government to ratify the ICESCR (and its Optional Protocol, which creates an individual complaints mechanism). The Community Law Centre (CLC), Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA (SERI), Black Sash, People’s Health Movement South Africa, National Welfare Forum, Global Call to Action against Poverty South Africa (GCAP-SA) and the Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute (SPII) see this as a great opportunity to ensure that South Africa’s jurisprudence on socio-economic rights develops in harmony with the normative standards set by the leading international treaty on these rights.
According to Jackie Dugard, executive director at the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA (SERI), “although this is a momentous and long-awaited decision, South Africa has for a while subscribed to the norms and standards contained in the ICESCR as it has ratified the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights of 1981, which echoes many of the socio-economic rights contained in the ICESCR. It has also included justiciable socio-economic rights in the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution.
Prof Lilian Chenwi, associate professor at the Wits School of Law, states that “given the role played by the international community and international human rights law in the struggle against apartheid, ratification of the ICESCR will fulfil South Africa’s express desire ‘to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations’, which is recognised in the Preamble to its Constitution.”
Rajesh Latchman, of the National Welfare Forum, states: “This move to ratify the ICESCR is an important step towards creating a harmonious roadmap for the realisation of socio-economic rights for all in SA, and it is about time too.”
While ratification of the ICESCR is significant, the ICESCR Ratification Campaign Driver Group encourages South Africa to also ratify the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR (OP-CESCR).
The Optional Protocol is an extra treaty that promotes a culture of accountability around the ICESCR, empowering vulnerable and marginalised groups to lodge individual complaints at the international level regarding violations of their socio-economic rights. The Optional Protocol is yet to come into force, as it requires 10 states to ratify it and, at present, only 8 states have done so.
It is hoped that the South African government will table the recommendation to ratify the ICESCR before Parliament and submit its accession instrument the United Nations without any further delay, and also ratify the Optional Protocol to concretise South Africa’s commitment to human rights and to bring this important international human rights instrument to life.
Issued by the ICESCR Ratification Campaign Driver Group which comprises:
Black Sash
Community Law Centre (CLC), University of the Western Cape
Global Call to Action against Poverty South Africa (GCAP-SA)
National Welfare Forum
People’s Health Movement South Africa
Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA (SERI)
Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute (SPII)
For additional information, contact:
Lilian Chenwi, associate professor, Wits School of Law: 072 172 6346 / lilian.chenwi@wits.ac.za
Jackie Dugard, executive director of SERI: 084 240 6187 / jackie@seri-sa.org
Rajesh Latchman, coordinator of the National Welfare Forum: 083 443 0227 / rajesh@nwf.org.za
Almost eighteen years after the South African government signed the ICESCR, Cabinet has approved that South Africa will ratify the ICESCR. This important decision to ratify, which means that the ICESCR will be legally binding, was included in a statement issued yesterday on Cabinet’s ordinary meeting held in Pretoria on 10 October 2012. The Cabinet statement describes how the ICESCR is a “key international treaty which seeks to encourage State Parties to address challenges of inequality, unemployment and poverty, which are critical to the strategic goals of governments.”
The ICESCR, together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, constitutes the International Bill of Rights. The ICESCR has been ratifed by over 160 states since it was adopted in 1966, 48 of which are African states and 11 of which are member states of SADC. South Africa ratified the ICCPR in 1998, and its current ratification of the ICESCR will unambiguously signal its commitment to be legally bound by the full range of human rights recognised under international law. In its statement, Cabinet indicates that the recommendation to ratify the ICESCR will be tabled in Parliament for ratification in line with Section 231(2) of the South African Constitution.
Civil society organisations have been calling for many years for the South African government to ratify the ICESCR (and its Optional Protocol, which creates an individual complaints mechanism). The Community Law Centre (CLC), Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA (SERI), Black Sash, People’s Health Movement South Africa, National Welfare Forum, Global Call to Action against Poverty South Africa (GCAP-SA) and the Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute (SPII) see this as a great opportunity to ensure that South Africa’s jurisprudence on socio-economic rights develops in harmony with the normative standards set by the leading international treaty on these rights.
According to Jackie Dugard, executive director at the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA (SERI), “although this is a momentous and long-awaited decision, South Africa has for a while subscribed to the norms and standards contained in the ICESCR as it has ratified the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights of 1981, which echoes many of the socio-economic rights contained in the ICESCR. It has also included justiciable socio-economic rights in the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution.
Prof Lilian Chenwi, associate professor at the Wits School of Law, states that “given the role played by the international community and international human rights law in the struggle against apartheid, ratification of the ICESCR will fulfil South Africa’s express desire ‘to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations’, which is recognised in the Preamble to its Constitution.”
Rajesh Latchman, of the National Welfare Forum, states: “This move to ratify the ICESCR is an important step towards creating a harmonious roadmap for the realisation of socio-economic rights for all in SA, and it is about time too.”
While ratification of the ICESCR is significant, the ICESCR Ratification Campaign Driver Group encourages South Africa to also ratify the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR (OP-CESCR).
The Optional Protocol is an extra treaty that promotes a culture of accountability around the ICESCR, empowering vulnerable and marginalised groups to lodge individual complaints at the international level regarding violations of their socio-economic rights. The Optional Protocol is yet to come into force, as it requires 10 states to ratify it and, at present, only 8 states have done so.
It is hoped that the South African government will table the recommendation to ratify the ICESCR before Parliament and submit its accession instrument the United Nations without any further delay, and also ratify the Optional Protocol to concretise South Africa’s commitment to human rights and to bring this important international human rights instrument to life.
Issued by the ICESCR Ratification Campaign Driver Group which comprises:
Black Sash
Community Law Centre (CLC), University of the Western Cape
Global Call to Action against Poverty South Africa (GCAP-SA)
National Welfare Forum
People’s Health Movement South Africa
Socio-Economic Rights Institute of SA (SERI)
Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute (SPII)
For additional information, contact:
Lilian Chenwi, associate professor, Wits School of Law: 072 172 6346 / lilian.chenwi@wits.ac.za
Jackie Dugard, executive director of SERI: 084 240 6187 / jackie@seri-sa.org
Rajesh Latchman, coordinator of the National Welfare Forum: 083 443 0227 / rajesh@nwf.org.za
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Sharp divisions on the Constitutional Court about the right to strike
In the aftermath of the Marikana massacre, the rights of striking workers and the unions they might belong to have once again come under the spotlight. Judging from the letters pages of middle brow newspapers, blog comments and callers to phone-in programmes, many middle class South Africans are about just as sympathetic to strikers and their constitutionally protected rights as they are to Julius Malema. Many middle class South Africans of whatever race seem to view striking workers as something of a menace, people who make unreasonable demands which – if agreed to – would threaten the comfortable existence of affluent members of society.
Luckily for striking workers, the majority of judges of the Constitutional Court do not seem to share this view. Last week, in the judgment of South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Others v Moloto N.O and Another the majority (in a judgment co-authored by Justice Yacoob, Froneman and Nkabinde, with Cameron and Van der Westhuizen concurring) rejected the argument of the minority (in a judgment authored by Acting Justice Maya, with Chief Justice Mogoeng, and Justice Jafta and Skweyiya concurring) that section 64(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act obliged every employee who intends to embark on a strike to notify his or her employer of that intention personally or through a representative for the strike action to be protected.
In this case SATAWU members went on a strike and provided the employer with the requisite notice (as required by section 64(1)(b) of the Act) that its members would embark on a strike. Employees who were not SATAWU members joined the strike without individually giving notice to the employer that they would do so. These employees were subsequently dismissed because of their failure to notify the employer that they would join the strike.
Section 64(1)(b) states that striking employers are protected and cannot be fired if certain procedural requirements are met, including the requirement that “at least 48 hours’ notice of the commencement of the strike, in writing, has been given to the employer”.
For the majority the starting point of the inquiry was the Constitution, which protects the right to strike as a fundamental right without expressly limiting this right. The majority affirmed that constitutional rights conferred without express limitation should not be cut down by interpreting ambiguous legislative provisions as imposing implicit limitations on them.
As section 64(1)(b) contains no express requirement that every employee who intends to participate in a protected strike must personally or through a representative give notice of the commencement of the intended strike, nor that the notice must indicate who will take part in the strike, it was sufficient that SATAWU had given notice that it would strike. As the majority stated:
It is an accepted interpretative principle in our constitutional jurisprudence that if there is more than one interpretation of a statutory provision that is constitutionally compliant, the interpretation that best conforms with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights should be preferred. In this case the interpretation not requiring every non-unionised member to give notice of their intention to take part in a strike organised by a union best conforms to the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights.
This becomes even more evident if one recalls that the right to strike is protected in the Constitution at least partly in recognition of the fact that there are disparities in the social and economic power held by employers and employees. Employers have far more power than individual employees and in order to redress the inequality in social and economic power in employer/employee relations, employees are granted the right to strike to even out the playing field. To require individual employees to give detailed information of not only when they will strike but how many of them will strike, “would run counter to the underlying purpose of the right to strike in our Constitution – to level the playing fields of economic and social power already generally tilted in favour of employers”. As the majority pointed out:
The minority took a more restrictive view of the rights of strikers and is more closely aligned with the interests of employers than with those of employees. Focusing on the objects of the Labour Relations Act (instead of on the relevant section in the Bill of Rights which guarantees for employees the right to strike), the minority found that employers would be negatively affected if employees were not all required (either individually or through their representatives) to give notice to employers that would embark on a strike.
In contrast to the majority view, which focused on the imbalances in power between striking workers and their employers, the minority seemed to assume that employers were pretty powerless in the face of a strike. Accordingly, they claimed:
The minority would therefore have re-interpreted the relevant section of the Labour Relations Act so as to require that employees provide an employer with a notice “that makes it possible for the employer to reasonably identify the employees that may strike. And whilst this requirement may well place a burden on the exercise of the right to strike, the constitutionality of the provisions is not in the balance and it is therefore unnecessary to resolve the question.”
The two judgments therefore seem to reflect rather stark ideological differences between the judges on the Constitutional Court as well as differences in how to view the relationship between the provisions of the Bill of Rights, on the one hand, and provisions of legislation giving effect to those rights on the other.
The majority seem to be decidedly more progressive by assuming that the right to strike contained in the Bill of Rights should be limited as little as possible in order to ensure the levelling of the playing field between employers and employees. They would therefore oppose an interpretation of the legislation that would impose limitations on this right unless such limitations are expressly stated in the Labour Relations Act itself.
The minority seems to be rather more sympathetic to employers and big business and less enthusiastic about protecting the rights of striking workers. They are also more eager to interfere in the work of the democratically elected Parliament by re-interpreting legislation passed by that Parliament in such a manner that it would limit the rights of workers – even if that was perhaps not what the democratically elected Parliament intended to do.
Wonder whether the Cosatu representative on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is regretting his support for the appointment of some of the Constitutional Court justices who joined this minority decision. But I guess that is what you get when you remain loyal to an Alliance in which your own class interests will ultimately almost always be trumped by the class interests of those pro-business and pro-tender elites who currently dominate the leadership of the ANC.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Luckily for striking workers, the majority of judges of the Constitutional Court do not seem to share this view. Last week, in the judgment of South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Others v Moloto N.O and Another the majority (in a judgment co-authored by Justice Yacoob, Froneman and Nkabinde, with Cameron and Van der Westhuizen concurring) rejected the argument of the minority (in a judgment authored by Acting Justice Maya, with Chief Justice Mogoeng, and Justice Jafta and Skweyiya concurring) that section 64(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act obliged every employee who intends to embark on a strike to notify his or her employer of that intention personally or through a representative for the strike action to be protected.
In this case SATAWU members went on a strike and provided the employer with the requisite notice (as required by section 64(1)(b) of the Act) that its members would embark on a strike. Employees who were not SATAWU members joined the strike without individually giving notice to the employer that they would do so. These employees were subsequently dismissed because of their failure to notify the employer that they would join the strike.
Section 64(1)(b) states that striking employers are protected and cannot be fired if certain procedural requirements are met, including the requirement that “at least 48 hours’ notice of the commencement of the strike, in writing, has been given to the employer”.
For the majority the starting point of the inquiry was the Constitution, which protects the right to strike as a fundamental right without expressly limiting this right. The majority affirmed that constitutional rights conferred without express limitation should not be cut down by interpreting ambiguous legislative provisions as imposing implicit limitations on them.
As section 64(1)(b) contains no express requirement that every employee who intends to participate in a protected strike must personally or through a representative give notice of the commencement of the intended strike, nor that the notice must indicate who will take part in the strike, it was sufficient that SATAWU had given notice that it would strike. As the majority stated:
The point of departure in interpreting section 64(1)(a) [and, one assumes, section 64(1)(b)] is that we should not restrict the right to strike more than is expressly required by the language of the provision, unless the purposes of the Act and the section on “a proper interpretation of the statute … imports them.” The relevance of a restrictive approach is to raise a cautionary flag against restricting the right more than is expressly provided for. Intrusion into the right should only be as much as is necessary to achieve the purpose of the provision and this requires sensitivity to the constraints of the language used.
It is an accepted interpretative principle in our constitutional jurisprudence that if there is more than one interpretation of a statutory provision that is constitutionally compliant, the interpretation that best conforms with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights should be preferred. In this case the interpretation not requiring every non-unionised member to give notice of their intention to take part in a strike organised by a union best conforms to the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights.
This becomes even more evident if one recalls that the right to strike is protected in the Constitution at least partly in recognition of the fact that there are disparities in the social and economic power held by employers and employees. Employers have far more power than individual employees and in order to redress the inequality in social and economic power in employer/employee relations, employees are granted the right to strike to even out the playing field. To require individual employees to give detailed information of not only when they will strike but how many of them will strike, “would run counter to the underlying purpose of the right to strike in our Constitution – to level the playing fields of economic and social power already generally tilted in favour of employers”. As the majority pointed out:
to hold otherwise would place a greater restriction on the right to strike of non-unionised employees and minority union employees than on majority union employees. It is these employees, much more than those who are unionised or represented by a majority union, who will feel the lash of a more onerous requirement. There is no warrant for that where they were already denied the right to bargain collectively on their own behalf in the preceding process.
The minority took a more restrictive view of the rights of strikers and is more closely aligned with the interests of employers than with those of employees. Focusing on the objects of the Labour Relations Act (instead of on the relevant section in the Bill of Rights which guarantees for employees the right to strike), the minority found that employers would be negatively affected if employees were not all required (either individually or through their representatives) to give notice to employers that would embark on a strike.
In contrast to the majority view, which focused on the imbalances in power between striking workers and their employers, the minority seemed to assume that employers were pretty powerless in the face of a strike. Accordingly, they claimed:
if a notice gives an employer no indication of which of its employees might strike, it is nigh impossible to conceive how the employer will prepare properly for the impending power play. How will it make an informed decision as to whether or not to yield to the employees’ demands? And, if it resists, how will it take proper steps to protect its business, the employees and the public and engage meaningfully in pre-strike regulatory discussions regarding issues such as picketing rules?
The minority would therefore have re-interpreted the relevant section of the Labour Relations Act so as to require that employees provide an employer with a notice “that makes it possible for the employer to reasonably identify the employees that may strike. And whilst this requirement may well place a burden on the exercise of the right to strike, the constitutionality of the provisions is not in the balance and it is therefore unnecessary to resolve the question.”
The two judgments therefore seem to reflect rather stark ideological differences between the judges on the Constitutional Court as well as differences in how to view the relationship between the provisions of the Bill of Rights, on the one hand, and provisions of legislation giving effect to those rights on the other.
The majority seem to be decidedly more progressive by assuming that the right to strike contained in the Bill of Rights should be limited as little as possible in order to ensure the levelling of the playing field between employers and employees. They would therefore oppose an interpretation of the legislation that would impose limitations on this right unless such limitations are expressly stated in the Labour Relations Act itself.
The minority seems to be rather more sympathetic to employers and big business and less enthusiastic about protecting the rights of striking workers. They are also more eager to interfere in the work of the democratically elected Parliament by re-interpreting legislation passed by that Parliament in such a manner that it would limit the rights of workers – even if that was perhaps not what the democratically elected Parliament intended to do.
Wonder whether the Cosatu representative on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is regretting his support for the appointment of some of the Constitutional Court justices who joined this minority decision. But I guess that is what you get when you remain loyal to an Alliance in which your own class interests will ultimately almost always be trumped by the class interests of those pro-business and pro-tender elites who currently dominate the leadership of the ANC.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Thursday, September 6, 2012
South Africa: NPA still wrong in Lonmin matter
Despite the withdrawal of the charges on Sunday by South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to charge 270 arrested mine workers for the killings of their colleagues, the initial decision to charge them in respect of the doctrine of common purpose is a perverse application of the law and that may have had the consequence of exacerbating tensions at Lonmin Mine in Marikana, North Western Province.
The tragic scenes of August 16, 2012, when police opened fire and killed 34 miners who were part of a group protesting against low wages, sent shockwaves throughout the world. Many reacted with horror at a display of police force that was reminiscent of apartheid South Africa.
Irrespective of what the Judicial Commission of Inquiry - established by President Zuma to investigate the killings and those responsible - may find once it conducts its investigation, there can be no doubt that the actions of the police can at best be described as extremely heavy handed.
While police may have overreacted, what happened in Marikana was a result of a Molotov cocktail of extremely angry miners (many of whom were armed with machetes and spears), a recalcitrant employer that seemed reluctant to negotiate to resolve the labour dispute, and an absent political and union leadership.
As a result of the killings and cognizant of the broader context in which the killings occurred, Human Rights Watch called on the South African government to ensure that the Commission is established speedily and for its terms of reference to include a fact-finding mission on the background and underlying events leading to the violence in Marikana.
It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
The creation of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry and the appointment of retired Judge Farlam to head it, is therefore a welcome step. Farlam is a highly respected judge who served many years on the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Commission will have four months in which to conduct its investigation and to submit its final report a month thereafter.
However, the actions by the NPA to add the doctrine of common purpose to the initial charge of public violence could have undone all the good efforts to address the situation. According to the doctrine, where two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their number which falls within their common design.
In other words, there was a common purpose to commit a crime. It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
This nonsensical decision by the NPA to charge the miners in this manner may have led many to conclude that these charges were politically motivated and an attempt to prevent further protests.
The terms of reference of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry include an investigation of all the parties involved and mandate the Commission to refer any matter regarding the conduct of any person or group for prosecution. In addition, the South Africa’s Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) has also initiated an investigation into the conduct of the police that led to the tragedy.
It is therefore very worrisome that there is very little complementarity between these investigations. As the Judicial Commission of Inquiry has been specifically established to conduct an independent and impartial investigation, it is more prudent for entities to work collaboratively with the Commission.
The decision by the NPA to charge the miners in terms of the doctrine of common purpose seems shortsighted for at least three reasons: Firstly, in the context of the establishment of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, it should await the results and recommendations of the investigation before deciding the appropriate course of action.
Secondly, the requirement of active association upon which it seems to rely is a misapplication of the doctrine which could lead to the unintended consequence of limiting human rights in other contexts. Lastly, its decision could have exacerbated the already tense situation and set off another Molotov cocktail.
Cameron Jacobs is the South Africa Director at Human Rights Watch
Source: Human Rights Watch
The tragic scenes of August 16, 2012, when police opened fire and killed 34 miners who were part of a group protesting against low wages, sent shockwaves throughout the world. Many reacted with horror at a display of police force that was reminiscent of apartheid South Africa.
Irrespective of what the Judicial Commission of Inquiry - established by President Zuma to investigate the killings and those responsible - may find once it conducts its investigation, there can be no doubt that the actions of the police can at best be described as extremely heavy handed.
While police may have overreacted, what happened in Marikana was a result of a Molotov cocktail of extremely angry miners (many of whom were armed with machetes and spears), a recalcitrant employer that seemed reluctant to negotiate to resolve the labour dispute, and an absent political and union leadership.
As a result of the killings and cognizant of the broader context in which the killings occurred, Human Rights Watch called on the South African government to ensure that the Commission is established speedily and for its terms of reference to include a fact-finding mission on the background and underlying events leading to the violence in Marikana.
It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
The creation of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry and the appointment of retired Judge Farlam to head it, is therefore a welcome step. Farlam is a highly respected judge who served many years on the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Commission will have four months in which to conduct its investigation and to submit its final report a month thereafter.
However, the actions by the NPA to add the doctrine of common purpose to the initial charge of public violence could have undone all the good efforts to address the situation. According to the doctrine, where two or more people agree to commit a crime or actively associate in a joint unlawful enterprise, each will be responsible for specific criminal conduct committed by one of their number which falls within their common design.
In other words, there was a common purpose to commit a crime. It is a perversion of the doctrine to suggest that whatever common crime it is alleged the miners were pursuing, that the killing of their colleagues by the police was a foreseeable outcome on their part of achieving that goal.
This nonsensical decision by the NPA to charge the miners in this manner may have led many to conclude that these charges were politically motivated and an attempt to prevent further protests.
The terms of reference of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry include an investigation of all the parties involved and mandate the Commission to refer any matter regarding the conduct of any person or group for prosecution. In addition, the South Africa’s Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) has also initiated an investigation into the conduct of the police that led to the tragedy.
It is therefore very worrisome that there is very little complementarity between these investigations. As the Judicial Commission of Inquiry has been specifically established to conduct an independent and impartial investigation, it is more prudent for entities to work collaboratively with the Commission.
The decision by the NPA to charge the miners in terms of the doctrine of common purpose seems shortsighted for at least three reasons: Firstly, in the context of the establishment of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, it should await the results and recommendations of the investigation before deciding the appropriate course of action.
Secondly, the requirement of active association upon which it seems to rely is a misapplication of the doctrine which could lead to the unintended consequence of limiting human rights in other contexts. Lastly, its decision could have exacerbated the already tense situation and set off another Molotov cocktail.
Cameron Jacobs is the South Africa Director at Human Rights Watch
Source: Human Rights Watch
US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya
Delivered Into Enemy Hands
When rebel forces overtook Tripoli in August 2011, prison doors were opened and office files exposed, revealing startling new information about Libya’s relations with other countries. One such revelation, documented in this report, is the degree of involvement of the United States government under the Bush administration in the arrest of opponents of the former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gaddafi, living abroad, the subsequent torture and other ill-treatment of many of them in US custody, and their forced transfer to back to Libya.
The United States played the most extensive role in the abuses, but other countries, notably the United Kingdom, were also involved.
This is an important chapter in the larger story of the secret and abusive US detention program established under the government of George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the rendition of individuals to countries with known records of torture.
This report is based mostly on Human Rights Watch interviews with 14 former detainees now residing freely in post-Gaddafi Libya and information contained in Libyan government files discovered abandoned immediately after Gaddafi’s fall (the “Tripoli Documents”). It provides detailed evidence of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in US custody, including a credible account of “waterboarding,” and a similar account of water abuse that brings the victim close to suffocation. Both types of abuse amount to torture. The allega-tions cast serious doubts on prior assertions from US government officials that only three people were waterboarded in US custody. They also reflect just how little the public still knows about what went on in the US secret detention program.
The report also sheds light on the failure of the George W. Bush administration, in the pursuit of suspects behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, to distinguish between Islam-ists who were in fact targeting the United States and those who may simply have been engaged in armed opposition against their own repressive regimes. This failure risked aligning the United States with brutal dictators and aided their efforts to dismiss all political opponents as terrorists.
The report examines the roles of other governments in the abuse of detainees in custody and in unlawful renditions to Libya despite demonstrable evidence the detainees would be seriously mistreated upon return. Countries linked to these accounts include: Afghanistan, Chad, China and Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sudan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Finally, the report shows that individuals rendered to Libya were tortured or otherwise ill-treated in Libyan prisons, including in two cases where the Tripoli Documents make clear the United States sought assurances that their basic rights would be respected. All were held in incommunicado detention—many in solitary confinement— for prolonged periods without trial. When finally tried, they found that the proceedings fell far short of international fair trial standards.
Source: Human Rights Watch
All we seek is justice.… We hope the new Libya, freed from its dictator, will have positive relationships with the West. But this relationship must be built on respect and justice. Only by admitting and apologizing for past mis-takes … can we move forward together as friends. —Abdul Hakim Belhadj, military commander during the Libyan uprising who had been forcibly returned to Libya in 2004 with US and UK involvement, Libya, April 12, 2012
When rebel forces overtook Tripoli in August 2011, prison doors were opened and office files exposed, revealing startling new information about Libya’s relations with other countries. One such revelation, documented in this report, is the degree of involvement of the United States government under the Bush administration in the arrest of opponents of the former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gaddafi, living abroad, the subsequent torture and other ill-treatment of many of them in US custody, and their forced transfer to back to Libya.
The United States played the most extensive role in the abuses, but other countries, notably the United Kingdom, were also involved.
This is an important chapter in the larger story of the secret and abusive US detention program established under the government of George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the rendition of individuals to countries with known records of torture.
This report is based mostly on Human Rights Watch interviews with 14 former detainees now residing freely in post-Gaddafi Libya and information contained in Libyan government files discovered abandoned immediately after Gaddafi’s fall (the “Tripoli Documents”). It provides detailed evidence of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in US custody, including a credible account of “waterboarding,” and a similar account of water abuse that brings the victim close to suffocation. Both types of abuse amount to torture. The allega-tions cast serious doubts on prior assertions from US government officials that only three people were waterboarded in US custody. They also reflect just how little the public still knows about what went on in the US secret detention program.
The report also sheds light on the failure of the George W. Bush administration, in the pursuit of suspects behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, to distinguish between Islam-ists who were in fact targeting the United States and those who may simply have been engaged in armed opposition against their own repressive regimes. This failure risked aligning the United States with brutal dictators and aided their efforts to dismiss all political opponents as terrorists.
The report examines the roles of other governments in the abuse of detainees in custody and in unlawful renditions to Libya despite demonstrable evidence the detainees would be seriously mistreated upon return. Countries linked to these accounts include: Afghanistan, Chad, China and Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sudan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Finally, the report shows that individuals rendered to Libya were tortured or otherwise ill-treated in Libyan prisons, including in two cases where the Tripoli Documents make clear the United States sought assurances that their basic rights would be respected. All were held in incommunicado detention—many in solitary confinement— for prolonged periods without trial. When finally tried, they found that the proceedings fell far short of international fair trial standards.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Monday, September 3, 2012
If Blair were PM in 1986, would he have invaded SA?
The question of a humanitarian war is an interesting one. Can a war ever be fought on moral grounds? I don’t think so – not unless there’s something with which the world’s great defenders can grease their palms.
Tony Blair ducked, dived and denied all responsibility of any type of wrongdoing for his decision to back the USA of their invasion of Iraq. He justified it morally, saying that even if the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was false, Saddam Hussein was a bad man who did bad things to his own people and neighbouring nations.
He claims he was justified in picking up arms, putting British soldiers at risk and ridding the world of an evil, oppressive regime. His intentions were purely moral in his mind.
As I listened to the former British Prime Minster dance his way through not answering questions at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit held in Sandton, a couple of queries sprang to mind. There is one question in particular I would have asked if I had managed to get a mic in my hands.
If this were so, then how would he have reacted if he were in power in 1986 instead of Maggie Thatcher? What would his approach have been if the ANC had made the request for British to invade South Africa and rid us of the Apartheid menace that was oppressing black South Africans?
The Apartheid government was illegally occupying Namibia, had invaded Angola and was busy destabilising all its neighbours. It also had a banned programme of weapons of mass destruction that included nuclear devices and a chemical weapons programme it was prepared to use on its own population. Arrested journalists, banned newspapers, engaged torture, detention without trial and in political assignations – the list goes on.
It had also unleashed its security forces to crush brutally any form of popular uprising that threatened Apartheid, despite the fact that the system had been declared a crime against humanity.
I wonder if Blair the defender of human rights and democracy would have rallied to the aid of the oppressed in South Africa, or would he have opted for a more diplomatic evolutionary approach? Would he carry the courage of his convictions or duck, dive and divert any request from the ANC to help liberate black South Africans?
A cynic would suggest that it would not be enough to overthrow an oppressive government only because they were bad and horrible; that it would only be “necessary” to invade such a country if the government were bad, horrible… and happened to have extremely valuable resources that the great defender desperately needed (or just plain wanted). The jokes about gold lining South Africa’s pavements would not have been quite enough to stimulate such a high level of intervention. And besides, there would be no reason for any modern British government to invade the Apartheid state to liberate the oppressed in the eighties. Why would they, when they already did so in 1899, when they decided to liberate “uitlanders” from the oppressive regime of the Boer republics? And, of course, get their hands on the country’s tidy portion of mineral resources in the process.
There would be no reason for the British to embark on a “humanitarian” war in Apartheid South Africa, because there would be nothing to gain. Why would Blair help free black people when the Empire already helped liberate the country’s resources over a century ago?
If, on the other hand, South Africa had been ripe for the exploiting, we may have had a very different history. Both pre- and post-liberation. We may have been forced into democracy much earlier; on the other hand, there may have been so many more innocent lives lost. We may have had the much-deserved moral support of a major international power; we also may have lost our independence to that same power.
There is no way to tell whether a major military intervention would have helped or hindered South Africa. And even if such a war were helpful, there would be no way to predict whether it would not bring its own set of problems; its own set of moral dilemmas and its own lack of freedoms.
Because, sadly, there’s no such thing as a humanitarian war. There’s only a war where I help you – and then help myself to what you’ve got.
Source: Daily Maverick
Tony Blair ducked, dived and denied all responsibility of any type of wrongdoing for his decision to back the USA of their invasion of Iraq. He justified it morally, saying that even if the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was false, Saddam Hussein was a bad man who did bad things to his own people and neighbouring nations.
He claims he was justified in picking up arms, putting British soldiers at risk and ridding the world of an evil, oppressive regime. His intentions were purely moral in his mind.
As I listened to the former British Prime Minster dance his way through not answering questions at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit held in Sandton, a couple of queries sprang to mind. There is one question in particular I would have asked if I had managed to get a mic in my hands.
If this were so, then how would he have reacted if he were in power in 1986 instead of Maggie Thatcher? What would his approach have been if the ANC had made the request for British to invade South Africa and rid us of the Apartheid menace that was oppressing black South Africans?
The Apartheid government was illegally occupying Namibia, had invaded Angola and was busy destabilising all its neighbours. It also had a banned programme of weapons of mass destruction that included nuclear devices and a chemical weapons programme it was prepared to use on its own population. Arrested journalists, banned newspapers, engaged torture, detention without trial and in political assignations – the list goes on.
It had also unleashed its security forces to crush brutally any form of popular uprising that threatened Apartheid, despite the fact that the system had been declared a crime against humanity.
I wonder if Blair the defender of human rights and democracy would have rallied to the aid of the oppressed in South Africa, or would he have opted for a more diplomatic evolutionary approach? Would he carry the courage of his convictions or duck, dive and divert any request from the ANC to help liberate black South Africans?
A cynic would suggest that it would not be enough to overthrow an oppressive government only because they were bad and horrible; that it would only be “necessary” to invade such a country if the government were bad, horrible… and happened to have extremely valuable resources that the great defender desperately needed (or just plain wanted). The jokes about gold lining South Africa’s pavements would not have been quite enough to stimulate such a high level of intervention. And besides, there would be no reason for any modern British government to invade the Apartheid state to liberate the oppressed in the eighties. Why would they, when they already did so in 1899, when they decided to liberate “uitlanders” from the oppressive regime of the Boer republics? And, of course, get their hands on the country’s tidy portion of mineral resources in the process.
There would be no reason for the British to embark on a “humanitarian” war in Apartheid South Africa, because there would be nothing to gain. Why would Blair help free black people when the Empire already helped liberate the country’s resources over a century ago?
If, on the other hand, South Africa had been ripe for the exploiting, we may have had a very different history. Both pre- and post-liberation. We may have been forced into democracy much earlier; on the other hand, there may have been so many more innocent lives lost. We may have had the much-deserved moral support of a major international power; we also may have lost our independence to that same power.
There is no way to tell whether a major military intervention would have helped or hindered South Africa. And even if such a war were helpful, there would be no way to predict whether it would not bring its own set of problems; its own set of moral dilemmas and its own lack of freedoms.
Because, sadly, there’s no such thing as a humanitarian war. There’s only a war where I help you – and then help myself to what you’ve got.
Source: Daily Maverick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)