Showing posts with label United Nations Human Rights Council. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2012

American drone strikes slammed!

Strong criticisms have emerged against the use of drones for killing people in several countries.

THE use of drones by one state to kill people in other countries is fast emerging as an international human rights issue of serious public concern.

This was evident in the recent session (June 18-July 6) of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, both in the official meetings and in NGO seminars.

The use of drones, or pilotless aircraft operated by remote control, by the government in one country to strike at persons and other targets in other countries, has been increasingly used by the United States in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Instead of following clear legal standards, the practice of drone attacks has become a vaguely defined and unaccountable “licence to kill”, according to a 2010 report of a UN human rights special rapporteur.

According to an article in The Guardian, the American Civil Liberties Union estimates that as many as 4,000 people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002. Of those, a significant proportion were civilians.

The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Barack Obama became president.

Recent criticisms and concerns raised by officials, experts and governments about the use of drones include the high numbers of deaths and casualties of innocent civilians; possible violation of sovereignty and international human rights laws; lack of information, transparency and accountability; their being counter-productive; and the indirect encouragement to other countries to similarly use drone attacks.

The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay in her overall report to the Human Rights Council on June 18 said that during her recent visit to Pakistan she expressed serious concern over the continuing use of armed drones for targeted attacks particularly because it was unclear that all persons targeted were combatants or directly participating in hostilities.

She added that the “UN secretary-general has expressed concern about the lack of transparency on the circumstances in which drones are used, noting that these attacks raise questions about compliance with distinction and proportionality.”

She reminded the US of their international obligation to take all necessary precautions to ensure that attacks comply with international law and urged them to conduct investigations that are transparent, credible and independent, and provide victims with effective remedies.

On June 26, Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram told the council that his country was directly affected by the indiscriminate use of drones, and at least a thousand civilians, including women and children, have been killed in drone attacks.

“The government of Pakistan has maintained consistently that drone attacks are not only counter-productive but a violation of international law and Pakistan’s sovereignty,” said Akram, adding that Pakistan’s Parliament has called for an immediate end to these attacks.

“Regrettably this call has not been heeded. The drone attacks continue in violation of the UN Charter, international human rights and international humanitarian law. The international human rights machinery must clearly reject attempts to justify these actions.”

At the council on June 16, Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, called for more transparency and accountability from the US, according to a IPS news report.

He urged that a framework be developed and adhered to, and pressed for accurate records of civilian deaths. “I think we’re in for very dangerous precedents that can be used by countries on all sides,” he said.

At an event organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Heyns said the US drone attacks would encourage other states to flout human rights standards and suggested that some drone strikes may even be war crimes, according to a report in the London-based Guardian.

Criticisms are also coming from US groups and a former president. “The US has cobbled together its own legal framework for targeted killing, with standards that are far less stringent than the law allows,” Hina Shamsi, a director of the ACLU told the council on June 20, according to IPS.

Shamsi also took issue with the lack of transparency of military programmes based on what she called “a secret legal criteria, entirely secret evidence, and a secret process”.

“The international community’s concern about the US targeted killing programme is continuing to grow because of the unlawfully broad authority our government asserts to kill ‘suspected terrorists’ far from any battlefield, without meaningful transparency or accountability,” Shamsi told IPS.

The lack of a legal framework allows for drone strikes to be implemented at will, in non-conflict zones and on the basis of loosely defined terrorist threats, without permission from the host nation, added the IPS article.

“In essence, drones cancel out national sovereignty,” Tom Engelhardt, co-author of Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050, told IPS. “The rules of the game are one country’s sovereignty trumps that of another.”

Former US President, Jimmy Carter, writing in the New York Times (June 24), noted that the use of US drone attacks “continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.

“These policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and military officials as well as rights defenders in targeted areas affirm that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families toward terrorist organisations, aroused civilian populations against us ... As concerned citizens we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms.”

Drones were originally developed to gather intelligence.

More than 40 countries have this technology and some have or are seeking drones that can shoot laser-guided missiles, according to a pioneering 2010 report by the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston.

They enable targeted killings with no risk to the personnel of the state carrying them out and can be operated remotely from the home state.

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR

Sunday, May 27, 2012

China issues 2011 US human rights record

US human rights report is full of distortion & false accusations

China has hit back at the US State Department’s controversial annual human rights report, saying it is full of distortion and false accusations. China says the US should stop pointing its finger at human rights situations in other countries and regions, a notorious practice of interfering in their internal affairs. In a further response, China has released its own report into the US’s Human Rights Record last year.

Play Video

China’s report says the US is again pointing a finger at the human rights situation in nearly 200 countries and regions, including China. However, the US turns a blind eye to its own terrible rights situation and seldom mentions it in its controversial annual report. China’s report urges the US to face up to its own human rights violations.

China’s report says the United States has real strength in human, financial and material resources to exert effective control over violent crimes. However, its society suffers chronically from such crimes, and its people’s lives, properties and personal security lack proper protection. The US also has a high incidence of gun related crime.

The report says the violation of people’s civil and political rights by the government is severe. US citizens’ rights and freedom were seriously violated during the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, with tens of thousands of protesters arrested. While advocating media and Internet freedom, the US in fact imposes fairly strict restrictions on the media and cyberspace. The US regards itself as the "beacon of democracy". However, its democracy is largely based on money.

China’s report says the US is the world’s richest country, but Americans’ economic, social and cultural rights are going from bad to worse. Unemployment remains high and the gap between the rich and the poor is continuing to widen. It also notes the number of people classed as poor in the US has hit a record high. More than 46 million Americans were in poverty in 2010, 2.6 million more than a year earlier. The number of American people without health insurance has increased progressively each year.

The report also says racial discrimination is deep-seated in the US. Minority groups regularly confront discrimination at work. They also face inequality in education. Racial discrimination is evident in law enforcement and judicial systems, racial hate crimes are frequent, and immigrants’ rights and interests are not guaranteed.

The rights of women and children rights are suffering. Gender discrimination against women exists widely in the US, and women in the country often experience sexual assault and violence. The report also says many children in the US live in poverty. Violence against children is severe.

The report points out the US has a notorious record of international human rights violations, imposing illegal medical tests on people in other countries. The US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused large numbers of civilian casualties. The report also says the US continues to violate the living and development rights of Cubans.

The report says the US has taken human rights as a political instrument to defame other nations in its own strategic interest. While illustrating a dismal record of the US on its own human rights, China’s report says the US is not justified in posing as the world’s fighter for human justice. It uses double standards in evaluating human rights conditions in other countries. China reiterates its stance of opposing foreign intervention in its internal affairs under the pretext of human rights.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Understanding our rights

Brave New World By AZMI SHAROM

Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental and inherent. It exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women.

RIGHTS are the weapons of the powerless. And just who are the powerless? Well, in my view, it is most of us.

Ordinary folks who either do not hold the reins of government machinery or have the means to control those who hold the reins.

That is why only those who are powerless or who have been powerless can truly appreciate rights.

We only have to look at history to see that to be true. The Magna Carta was created because the nobility of Britain felt powerless against the King.

The American Declaration of Independence takes the shape that it does because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that they would never again be under the yoke of a distant king.

This image was selected as a picture of the we...

Image via Wikipedia

Our own leaders, during the early days of our existence as a nation also understood this need for rights, having been ruled by an oppressive force more powerful than them.

Of course there are those with short memories who belittle rights when they have power, bemoan the lack of them when they lose power and belittle them again when they have power once more.

But then, there will always be the utterly unprincipled in any community.

The human race has evolved. We have values which prevent the strong simply taking what they want from the weak.

Our laws are in place so that we can be assured a person who is bigger than us can’t simply knock us out and take our wallets.

And just as we have laws to protect us against thieves and thugs, so too do we have principles which prevent the rulers from abusing us.

As a race we have come a long way from “only the strong will survive”. And that is due to the civilising of human kind.

Rights therefore are the current pinnacle of this civilising process. It indicates that we are civilised.

Related to human rights is democracy. When we choose our own leaders, we ensure that we are not led simply by someone who is going to force himself or herself onto us.

Once again, we see a principle which empowers the powerless.

This is why I care so much about human rights and democracy.

This is why I get furious when those who do not understand or choose not to understand, take my rights away.

That is why I work on the premise that we must have as much rights as possible.

Of course I understand there are limitations to everything, including rights, but those limitations must be made with the aspiration that a complete right is the ideal.

It is only with these aspirations in place will we ensure that whatever limitations imposed are the barest minimum and with the smallest effect on our rights.

Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental, it is inherent. It is not something that can be given for it exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women.

The powerful do not wish to see this.

It is up to us, the powerless, to remind them.

Related post:

New thinking on human rights & cooperation

Friday, July 22, 2011

Malaysia should do away with outdated laws to meet human needs

Malaysia should do away with outdated laws

M.Veera Pandiyan

Malaysia still has the Internal Security Act 1960 -- which allows for the detention without trial of people deemed to be threats to national se-curity -- for more than half a century.

The phrase "the law is an ass" is attributed to Charles Dickens.

It originates from Oliver Twist after the character Mr Bumble is told: "The law supposes that your wife acts under your direction".

What one of the foremost classical writers of English literature actually wrote was: "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass, an idiot."

No, he wasn't using grammar akin to the Manglish being taught in our schools today. It was just that the rules of the language were not quite defined during his era.

But as then as in now, many laws can be described as asinine. They have become meaningless through the passage of time but are still in force and have become subjects of ridicule.

In the United States for example, incestuous marriages are not deemed illegitimate in the southern state of Alabama.

Another law in Mississippi states that if one is a parent to two illegitimate children, he or she can be jailed for at least a month.

In New York, adultery is still a crime and one can be fined US$25 for flirting.

It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing body-hugging clothes but she can go topless in public, provided she is not doing it for any business.

In Denver, Colorado, the law states that dog catchers must notify dogs of impounding by posting for three consecutive days, a notice on a tree in the city park.

Apparently it is also unlawful to lend one's vacuum cleaner to a next-door neighbour.

More than eight women are not allowed to live in the same house in the state of Tennessee because that would constitute a brothel, while Encyclopaedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

In President Barack Obama's home state of Illinois, it is now illegal to wear sagging pants. A new law requires pants to be "secured at the waist to prevent the pants from falling below the hips, causing exposure to the person or the person's undergarments."

And there are many comical laws still in force in the United Kingdom.

For example, it is illegal to die in Britain's Houses of Parliament and sticking a postage stamp bearing the Queen upside down is deemed an act of treason.

In Liverpool, where footballers and fans tend to strip off their shirts in celebration of goals, it is illegal for a woman to be topless -- unless she is a clerk in a shop selling tropical fish.

As for the outdated legislation in Malaysia, they are anything but funny.

We still have too many laws that allow for detention without trial, contravening the fundamental principles of human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and other international conventions.

Malaysia still has the Internal Security Act 1960 -- which allows for the detention without trial of people deemed to be threats to national se-curity -- for more than half a century.

For the record, the ISA has not been used against political opponents since Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister on April 3, 2009.

But it remains in force, despite calls for its repeal by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam), the Association for the Pro-motion of Human Rights (Proham), the Bar Council, politicians and civil society organisations.

So do other equally outmoded and detestable edicts such as the Emer-gency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969, the Re-stricted Residence Act 1933, Pre-vention of Crime Act 1959 and the Banishment Act 1959.

Under the EO, detainees can be held for 60 days with a possible extension of two years or more without trial.

In 2005, the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police affirmed that the EO violates international human rights and called for its repeal, saying that it had "outlived its purpose and facilitated the abuse of fundamental liberties".

The detention of six Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) leaders, including Sungai Siput MP Dr Michael Jeyakumar under the EO since July 2 for "allegedly being involved with foreign and subversive elements", has again fuelled suspicions of such misuse.

The six were among 30 arrested on June 25 for allegedly supporting Bersih 2.0 and possessing T-shirts with faces of communist leaders on them.

At a time when public confidence in the police and credibility in the rule of law are being questioned, the continued detention of Dr Jeyaku-mar under the EO can only result in more rancour against the Government.

Dr Jeyakumar, the giant killer who thrashed Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) supremo S. Samy Vellu in 2008, may be an unwavering socialist committed to his cause, but he certainly does not fit the image of a dangerous or subversive element.

Enough Malaysians, including his colleagues in the medical fraternity have vouched for his humility and integrity, his selfless passion to help the poor and his peaceful approach to politics.

It's really a bit of a stretch to associate Dr Jeyakumar with intending to "wage war against the King" and instigating the overthrow of the Government.

But if the authorities indeed have any such proof, they should charge him and the others using existing criminal laws.

In the bigger picture, Malaysia as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, is not only expected to meet the principles of human rights but also be seen to be respecting and upholding the rights of its people.

Malaysians deserve to be free from laws that breach basic standards.

Law to meet human needs

Putik Lada By Genevieve Tan

We sometimes forget a simple fact about the law: as our needs grow and change, the law can grow and change with those needs.

WHY do we have the law? In other words, what is the law essentially about?

The law is about our needs. Where there is a need, whether it is to eat or to be protected from harm, the law is created to address those needs.

When you want to understand the law, you need to first understand what is the need behind that law.

For example, Article 9 of the Federal Constitution sets out our right to move and live in any part of Malaysia. Why? Because we need to move and settle wherever we want in our country.

When we needed to protect ourselves from being robbed, the law addressed that need by creating section 390 of the Penal Code setting out the offence of robbery.

Simply put, the law accommodates human needs. With that logic, how can we say that we cannot be protected and loved by the law? How can we also say that the law does not serve us?

We sometimes tend to forget. We also sometimes forget another simple fact about the law: as our needs grow and change, the law can grow and change with those needs.

For example, in response to the public’s need to counter corruption, parliament passed the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and subsequently replaced it with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.

To combat money laundering and terrorism financing, the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 was passed.

Mind you, these laws were passed less than ten years ago. Hence, whether or not these laws are effective, the point remains: the law continues to change as it follows our needs.

What does this say? Like us, our Government realises that they have to respond to our needs to curb corruption or to deal with the problem of money laundering.

After all, our Government, like many other governments, serves us, the people, as we serve them. Without each other, our Government cannot work and we cannot live in this country at all.

The law creates regulations. Without the law, we are without order, stability, regulation and consequently, we would be without peace.

Every piece of legal document that you see came from a source. In Malaysia, we wrote these basic laws into a document called the Federal Constitution.

In Britain, the place from where we derived a lot of our laws, it has no written constitution.

So, if we think of this logically, there was no natural source for laws that outlawed one kind of human or another. There simply was the love to protect and support our needs.

And what was the fifth basic law that was passed by Malaysia?

This is set out in Article 5 of our Federal Constitution which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, save in accordance with law.”

What was the source before that fifth basic law?

“This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

This is my third article on the law and if you noticed, I repeat certain themes. Without any disguise, I see the law as a very simple thing. It even protects companies.

For example, section 222 of the Companies Act, 1965 allows a company to be protected from court proceedings if it makes such an application to the court.

Allow me to show you how much more simple and powerful it can get.

The law creates protection, officers of protection and leaders to protect the law. The law was created to love us.

Take another example, the issue of teenage pregnancy. Teenage mothers and their babies are protected by the usual criminal laws and the Child Act 2001.

However, the current laws on unwed teenage mothers do not provide adequate support systems for these mothers who are abandoned by the fathers of the babies and their own families.

As a result, many of these mothers are forced out into the streets or into shelters.

If we want to change the current laws to address the needs of unwed teenage mothers and their babies, we actually can!

Just like with the Anti-Corruption Act, we can act on our need to punish unwed fathers who have abandoned their pregnant teenage partners and update our laws to give better support to these mothers.

Let’s not forget that blame and causation is not the issue here. The issue here is that we have the power to change the law if we love our needs enough.

As public citizens, we are the reason why there are laws in the first place. As public citizens, we outnumber lawyers, ministers, doctors and accountants put together. So by numbers alone, we as public citizens have more power with the law than our professional colleagues do.

Each and every one of us is more powerful than we think. After all, we have the law that was created to love us and to address our needs.

Like in my last article Mirror, mirror on the wall, let’s just keep things simple.

Let’s use the law and ourselves to treat everyone with courtesy, morality and love.

> Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.